California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation:
It Fails to Track and Use Data That Would Allow It to More
Effectively Monitor and Manage Its Operations
September 2009 Report 2009-107.1

CALIFORNIA
S TAT E A U D I T O R

The first five copies of each California State Auditor report are free. Additional copies are $3 each, payable by
check or money order. You can obtain reports by contacting the Bureau of State Audits at the following address:
California State Auditor
Bureau of State Audits
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
916.445.0255 or TTY 916.445.0033
OR
This report is also available on the World Wide Web http://www.bsa.ca.gov
The California State Auditor is pleased to announce the availability of an on-line subscription service. For
information on how to subscribe, please contact the Information Technology Unit at 916.445.0255, ext. 456,
or visit our Web site at www.bsa.ca.gov.
Alternate format reports available upon request.
Permission is granted to reproduce reports.
For questions regarding the contents of this report,
please contact Margarita Fernández, Chief of Public Affairs, at 916.445.0255.

Elaine M. Howle
State Auditor

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

Doug Cordiner
Chief Deputy

Bureau of State Audits

555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300

S a c r a m e n t o, C A 9 5 8 1 4

September 8, 2009	

916.445.0255

916.327.0019 fax

w w w. b s a . c a . g o v

2009-107.1

The Governor of California
President pro Tempore of the Senate
Speaker of the Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders:
As requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the California State Auditor presents this audit report
concerning California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (Corrections) impact on the state budget.
This report concludes that Corrections fails to track, maintain, and use data that would allow it to more
effectively monitor and manage its operations. Specifically, Corrections’ expenditures increased by 32 percent
in the past three years to $10 billion; however, its ability to determine the impact various factors such as
overcrowding, the transition of the health care function to a federal court-appointed receiver, escalating overtime
costs, and the presence of aging inmates have on the cost of its operations is limited by a lack of information.
Furthermore, despite rising costs for incarcerating inmates, Corrections does not have sufficient information to
identify how much specific inmate characteristics contribute to these costs and how changes in Corrections’
operations would affect expenditures. For example, housing, security, and support are the largest contributors
to the cost of incarceration, but the number of custody staff associated with specific populations of inmates—
which are not tracked by Corrections—depends on the security and custody levels of the inmates as well
as various institutional considerations. Custody staff costs include $431 million paid in overtime during fiscal
year 2007–08; however the cost to recruit and train new correctional officers, combined with the significant
increases in the cost of benefits in recent years makes hiring a new correctional officer slightly more expensive
than paying overtime to those currently employed by Corrections.
Nearly 25 percent of the inmate population is incarcerated under the three strikes law, which requires individuals
to serve longer terms. By comparing the sentences these inmates received to what they might have received
absent the three strikes law, we estimate that the increase in sentence length for inmates incarcerated under the
three strikes law will cost the State $19.2 billion for the additional time these inmates are sentenced to serve.
However, our analysis does not consider various factors that depend upon inmate behavior, including credit
earned toward early release and recidivism—the likelihood that an inmate will return to prison for committing
another offense.
Additionally, while Corrections’ budget for its academic and vocational programs totaled more than
$208 million for fiscal year 2008–09, its system for accessing, processing, and tracking inmate educational data
is extremely inadequate, and therefore it is unable to determine the success of its programs. Finally, the use
of telemedicine is in the early stages and although the receiver plans to transition additional medical care to
telemedicine, progress in doing so is impeded by a manual scheduling system and limited technology. Without
systemwide improvements, it is unlikely that significant amounts of additional care will be provided via this
delivery method.
In a subsequent report, we plan to provide additional analysis of some of these issues including the size and
additional costs of specific populations of inmates incarcerated under the three strikes law, information on
medical specialty visits, and additional information related to vacant positions for custody  staff.
Respectfully submitted,

ELAINE M. HOWLE, CPA
State Auditor

California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation:
It Fails to Track and Use Data That Would Allow It to More
Effectively Monitor and Manage Its Operations
September 2009 Report 2009-107.1

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Contents
Summary	

1

Introduction	

7

Chapter 1	
A Lack of Accurate Data Complicates Identification of Specific
Characteristics That Affect the Average Annual Cost Per Inmate	

25

Recommendations	

57

Chapter 2	
Without a Current Staffing Plan Based on Inmate Needs or Adequate
Data, Corrections Cannot Effectively Allocate Resources or Ensure
That It Is Meeting Inmate Education Needs	

59

Recommendations	

67

Chapter 3	
Telemedicine Expansion Is in Its Infancy 	

69

Recommendations	

74

Appendix A	
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Average
Inmate Cost by Institution Based on Average Daily Population for
Fiscal Year 2007–08	

77

Appendix B	
Serious or Violent Felonies as Defined by California State Law 	

83

Appendix C	
Selected Programs Available by Institution	

87

Appendix D
California Prison Health Care Services’ Progress in Implementing
Recommendations for the Telemedicine Program	

93

Responses to the Audit	
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation	

97

California State Auditor’s Comments on the Response From
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation	
Prison Health Care Services	

99
103

vii

viii

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Summary
Results in Brief

Audit Highlights . . .

The mission of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (Corrections) is to enhance public safety through the
safe and secure incarceration of offenders, rehabilitative strategies to
successfully reintegrate offenders into communities, and supervision
of parolees. In the last three years Corrections’ expenditures have
increased by almost 32 percent, and its expenditures now represent
about 10 percent of the State’s total General Fund expenditures.
During the same period of time, the inmate population has
decreased by roughly 1 percent. Various factors influence the
cost of Corrections’ operations, including overcrowding, vacant
employee positions, the transition of the inmate health care function
to a federal court‑appointed receiver, escalating overtime costs,
and the presence of aging inmates with lengthy prison terms due
to sentencing under the three strikes law. Additionally, a recent
federal court order requiring Corrections to create a plan to
drastically reduce the inmate population at its institutions will also
likely affect costs.

Our review of California’s increasing prison
cost as a proportion of the state budget and
the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation’s (Corrections)
operations revealed the following:

Although these factors affect the cost of its operations, Corrections’
ability to determine the impact of each factor is limited by a lack
of information. Despite rising costs for incarcerating inmates,
Corrections does not have sufficient information to identify how
much specific inmate or institution characteristics contribute to
these costs and how changes in Corrections’ operations would
influence expenditures. Further, due to a lack of basic data
regarding education and vocational programs provided to inmates,
Corrections does not have information that could help it identify
opportunities to evaluate effectiveness in reducing the chance that
inmates will return to prison once they are released. Corrections
is in the process of developing an automated system that will, if
successful, allow for statewide data analysis.
Using the data available in Corrections’ accounting records, we
were able to associate expenditures with specific institutions.
However, because Corrections fails to maintain certain basic
management information, we were unable to determine the
number of custody officers associated with specific populations,
such as high‑security inmates, violent offenders, and specialized
units, and thus were unable to determine what causes the
significant cost fluctuations among institutions. In contrast, we
were able to confirm that costs per inmate generally increase
with the security level of the institution’s mission, or primary
function. The higher costs at some institutions are related primarily
to health care and increased custody staffing levels, and we found
that institutions that house high‑security inmates, violent offenders,

»» While Corrections’ expenditures have
increased by almost 32 percent in the
last three years, the inmate population
has decreased by 1 percent during the
same period.
»» Corrections’ ability to determine
the influence that factors such as
overcrowding, vacant positions,
escalating overtime costs, and aging
inmates have on the cost of operations is
limited because of a lack of information.
»» The cost of housing an inmate out of state
in fiscal year 2007–08 was less per inmate
than the amount Corrections spent to
house inmates in some of its institutions.
»» Overtime is so prevalent that of
the almost 28,000 correctional officers
paid in  fiscal year 2007–08, more than
8,400 earned pay in excess of the top
pay rate for officers two ranks above a
correctional officer.
»» Over the next 14 years, the
difference between providing new
correctional officers with enhanced
retirement benefits  as opposed to
the retirement benefits many other state
workers receive, will cost the State an
additional $1 billion.

continued on next page . . .

1

2

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

»» Nearly 25 percent of the inmate population
is incarcerated under the three strikes law.
We estimated that the increase in sentence
length due to the three strikes law will
cost the State an additional $19.2 billion
over the duration of the incarceration of
this population.
»» Although Corrections’ budget for
academic and vocational programs
totaled more than $208 million for fiscal
year 2008–09, it is unable to assess the
success of its programs.
»» California Prison Health Care Services’
ability to transition to using telemedicine
is impeded by a manual scheduling system
and limited technology.

and specialized units had significantly higher average annual costs
per inmate. In a subsequent report, we plan to provide further
detail on the comparative cost of contracted medical care provided
to inmates of various ages.
Corrections is working to reduce overcrowding and currently
houses several thousand inmates in contracted facilities located in
other states. The primary purpose of incarcerating inmates outside
California is to reduce overcrowding and the dangerous conditions
caused by placing inmates in prison areas such as gymnasiums,
dayrooms, and program rooms that were not designed for inmates
that need cells. The cost of housing an inmate out of state in fiscal
year 2007–08 was less per inmate than the amount Corrections
spent to house generally comparable inmates.
Housing, security, and support costs are the largest category
in the cost of incarceration, and the number of custody staff
depends on the security and custody levels of the inmates as well
as various institutional considerations. Custody staff costs include
the $431 million Corrections paid in overtime for inmate custody
operations during fiscal year 2007–08. Overtime is so prevalent
that of the almost 28,000 correctional officers paid in fiscal
year 2007–08, more than 8,400 earned pay in excess of the top
pay rate for a correctional lieutenant—the level two ranks above
a correctional officer. However, the cost to recruit and train new
correctional officers, combined with the significant increases in the
cost of benefits in recent years, makes hiring a new correctional
officer slightly more costly per hour than paying overtime to the
highest‑paid correctional officers currently employed by Corrections.
For example, the percentage of a correctional officer’s salary that
the State contributes for retirement benefits was nearly 26 percent
in fiscal year 2007–08. The retirement benefits correctional officers
receive allow them to retire with similar benefits nine years earlier
than other state employees who receive the same salary. According to
our estimates, over the next 14 years the difference between providing
new correctional officers with the enhanced retirement benefits they
currently receive, as opposed to the retirement benefits many other
state workers receive, will cost the State an additional $1 billion.
Nearly 25 percent of the inmate population is incarcerated under
the three strikes law. The three strikes law requires individuals
to serve longer prison terms. In addition, our analysis indicates
that such inmates as a population are older. Research has
found that older inmates require more health care, and as a result
the costs of incarcerating them are higher. By comparing the
sentences of inmates incarcerated under the three strikes law to
the sentences they might otherwise have received, we estimate
that the increase in sentence length due to the three strikes law will
cost the State an additional $19.2 billion over the duration of these

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

inmates’ incarceration. However, our analysis does not take into
account several factors that are dependent upon inmate behavior,
including the differences in the amount of credit inmates can earn
toward an early release and the rate of recidivism—the likelihood
that an inmate will return to prison for committing another offense.
We will publish a subsequent report that will provide additional
details on the number and cost of subpopulations of inmates
sentenced under the three strikes law.
Additionally, while Corrections’ budget for its academic and
vocational programs totaled more than $208 million in fiscal
year 2008–09, it confirmed that its system for accessing,
processing, and tracking inmate educational data is extremely
inadequate, and therefore it is unable to determine the success of its
programs in reducing the chance that inmates will return to prison
once they are released. Moreover, Corrections’ lack of a plan for
placing teachers in institutions and classes based on inmate needs
limits the likelihood that education is being provided to eligible
populations in an efficient manner. Further, a lack of information on
inmates who have been on a waiting list, or previously participated
in these programs, limits Corrections’ ability to determine the
efficacy of these programs, whether inmates were denied access
by being paroled prior to enrolling in a program, and whether
Corrections complied with state law requiring it to make literacy
programs available to at least 60 percent of eligible inmates in the
state prison system.
Finally, although cost is not the federally appointed receiver’s main
focus, the receiver hopes to cut medical costs by transitioning
additional medical care to telemedicine appointments—two‑way
video conferencing between an inmate and a health care provider.
However, this process is in an early stage. Furthermore, California
Prison Health Care Services (Health Care Services) has not yet
estimated the total cost savings, effectiveness, or potential for using
telemedicine due to a lack of reliable information. In addition, its
ability to transition a significant portion of the health care workload
to telemedicine is impeded by a manual scheduling system and
limited technology. Without systemwide improvements addressing
these issues, it is unlikely that significant amounts of additional care
will be provided via this delivery method.

3

4

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Recommendations
To help it assess the effect of policy changes and manage operations
in a cost‑effective manner, Corrections should do the following:
•	 Ensure that its new data system will address its current lack of
data available for statewide analysis, specifically, data related to
identifying the custody staffing cost by inmate characteristics
such as security level, age, or custody designation.
•	 If implementation of its new data system continues to be
delayed, or if Corrections determines that the new system will
not effectively replace the current assignment and scheduling
systems used by the institutions, it should improve its existing
data related to custody staffing levels and use the data to identify
the related costs of various inmate populations.
To ensure that it is addressing the program needs of its inmate
population in the most cost‑effective manner, Corrections should
develop a staffing plan that allocates teacher and instructor
positions at each institution based on the program needs of its
inmate population.
To ensure that it can determine whether it is in compliance with
state law and can measure the efficacy of its programs in reducing
recidivism, Corrections should track, maintain, and use historical
program assignment and waiting list data by inmate.
To minimize costs through the use of telemedicine, Health Care
Services should do the following:
•	 Review the effectiveness of telemedicine consultations to better
understand how to use telemedicine.
•	 Perform a more comprehensive comparison between the cost
of using telemedicine and the cost of traditional consultations,
beyond the guarding and transportation costs, so that it can
make informed decisions regarding the cost‑effectiveness of
using telemedicine.
To increase the use and efficiency of the telemedicine system,
Health Care Services should maintain a focus on developing and
improving its computer systems, such as its scheduling system.

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Agency Comments
Corrections believes that the report does not completely capture
the complexity of many of the issues it addresses. For example,
Corrections asserts that the source of the difficulty in determining
the number of custody officers associated with a given group of
inmates is that inmates have multiple characteristics and thus
may be a part of more than one group. In addition, it believes
that some of the topics discussed in the report are not solely
within its purview to address and that while it agrees with our
recommendation that it should seek better data to more effectively
manage, it questions how this will allow it to reduce certain types
of costs. Finally, Corrections believes that it has made progress in
several of the areas discussed in the report, and will address the
specific recommendations in future corrective action plans.
The receiver agrees with our recommendations and states that
Health Care Services is taking action to address them.

5

6

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Introduction
Background
Established in 1944, the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (Corrections) operates California’s prisons,
oversees community correctional facilities, supervises parolees, and
operates the juvenile justice system. In a July 2005 reorganization,
Corrections added “Rehabilitation” to its name to encompass its
objective of addressing the rehabilitative and reentry needs of
incarcerated juvenile wards and adult inmates. As of June 30, 2009,
it was responsible for nearly 168,000 inmates, 111,000 parolees, and
more than 1,600 juvenile wards of the State.
Corrections’ Annual Expenditures
Comprising 10 percent of the State’s General Fund budget for
fiscal year 2007–08, Corrections’ expenditures increased by
32 percent in the previous three years, to $10 billion. During the
same period, Corrections’ population of adult inmates decreased
by 1 percent while its population of adult parolees increased by
7 percent, juveniles in facilities decreased by 37 percent, and
juvenile parolees decreased by 29 percent. As shown in Table 1
on the following page, the majority of Corrections’ expenditures
are attributable to two programs, Adult Corrections and
Rehabilitation (adult corrections) and Adult Health Care Services
(adult health care). For fiscal year 2007–08, adult corrections’
expenditures totaled $5.4 billion, which includes expenditures for
the 33 adult correctional institutions, the conservation camps,
and costs of inmates sent to community correctional facilities and
to out‑of‑state correctional facilities. Table 1 also shows that
adult corrections accounted for more than half of Corrections’
expenditures for fiscal year 2007–08, while adult health care
accounted for another 22 percent.
Adult health care, the second most expensive cost area of adult
operations, cost $2.1 billion for inmates in Corrections custody in
fiscal year 2007–08. Some inmate health care is offered internally
at all adult institutions; however, significant amounts of the adult
health care expenditures are related to external contractors,
including specialty physicians, hospitals, and laboratories. According
to the 2009–10 Governor’s Budget, the objective of adult health
care is to provide medical, dental, and mental health care to the
inmate population statewide consistent with adopted standards

7

8

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

for the quality and scope of services within a custodial environment.
The adult health care program also operates three licensed hospitals
and a skilled nursing facility for female inmates, 16 correctional
treatment centers, a hospice care wing at California Medical
Facility, and eight HIV units at various institutions.
Table 1
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Program
Expenditures for Fiscal Year 2007–08
PROGRAM

TOTALS

PERCENT

Adults
Adult corrections and rehabilitation
Correctional inmate health care
Education, vocational, and other rehabilitation
Community partnerships
Subtotals

$5,407,735,654

54%

2,144,083,416

22

428,347,373

4

8,999,779

0

$7,989,166,222

80%

Parole
Adult parole operations
Board of parole hearings
Subtotals

$733,818,494
85,202,618
$819,021,112

7%
1
8%

Juveniles
Facilities operations
Programs

$213,396,454

2%

162,545,866

2

Health care services

93,871,269

1

Parole operations

30,124,029

0

Subtotals

$499,937,618

5%

Other
Administration
Corrections Standards Authority
Capital outlay
Subtotals
Total

$291,410,083
220,823,787
149,649,936
$661,883,806

3%
2
2
7%

$9,970,008,758

Source:  Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s
accounting records for fiscal year 2007–08.

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Additionally, Table 1 shows that Corrections reported
expenditures of $150 million for capital outlay and $221 million
for the Corrections Standards Authority1 in fiscal year 2007–08.
Because Corrections does not allocate these costs to specific
Corrections’ institutions, we did not include the costs in our
calculations of the average annual cost to incarcerate an inmate.
Corrections’ Mission and Adult Institution Characteristics
According to Corrections’ 2007–12 strategic plan, its overall
purpose is to enhance public safety through safe and secure
incarceration of offenders, effective parole supervision, and
rehabilitative strategies to successfully reintegrate
offenders into communities. As shown in
Figure 1 on the following page, Corrections
Institution Missions
manages 33 adult correctional institutions
throughout California.
Female offenders:  House all female inmates regardless of
Generally, Corrections assigns each institution
a mission based on factors such as the primary
function or security level of its facilities, its
physical design, the gender of the inmates, and the
presence of specialized housing units. The text box
describes the five missions Corrections assigns to
its institutions. Additionally, as shown in Figure 2
on page 12, institutions house inmates with multiple
custody designations that range from minimum to
maximum custody.
The mission of the general population levels II
and III institutions, which include community
correctional facilities and camps, is to provide
safe and secure housing for minimum to medium
custody inmates while maximizing opportunities
for rehabilitation through work assignments,
academic and vocational education, and
substance abuse treatment and self‑help programs.

1	

security level.
Reception centers:  Safely and securely house male inmates
during processing and classification for assignment to one of
the State’s institutions.*
General population levels II and III:  Safely and securely
house minimum to medium custody male inmates.†
General population levels III and IV:  Safely and securely
house high‑medium to maximum custody male inmates.
High security and transitional housing:  Safely and
securely house the most violent and dangerous
male offenders.
Sources:  California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation’s Web site and associate directors over missions,
Division of Adult Institutions.
*	 This mission also oversees the California out-of state
correctional facilities.
†	This mission also includes community correctional facilities
and camps.

The Corrections Standards Authority works in partnership with city and county officials to,
among other things, develop and maintain standards for the construction, operation, and
staffing of state and local jails and juvenile detention facilities.

9

10

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Figure 1
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Institutions by Mission
Number of
Institutions

Mission

Pelican Bay State Prison
Crescent City

x

Female Offenders

3

Reception Center

7

General Population Levels II and III

7

Camp Institutions*

Susanville

Sacramento
California Medical Facility

Vacaville

High Security and Transitional Housing

7

Totals

33

Sierra Conservation Center
Jamestown

x Deuel Vocational Institution
Chowchilla

Salinas
Correctional Training Facility

7

Mule Creek State Prison

Stockton
San Francisco
Tracy

General Population Levels III and IV

Folsom State Prison
California State Prison (CSP), Sacramento (New Folsom)

CSP, Solano
San Quentin State Prison x

High Desert State Prison
California Correctional Center

2

Valley State Prison for Women
Central California Women’s Facility
Fresno

Salinas Valley State Prison

Pleasant Valley State Prison
Avenal State Prison

CSP, Corcoran
California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison

x North Kern State Prison
Kern Valley State Prison

California Men’s Colony
San Luis Obispo

x Wasco State Prison
Bakersfield

California Correctional Institution

Santa Barbara

x CSP, Los Angeles County

Riverside
Los Angeles
Chino
California Institution for Men x
California Institution for Women
California Rehabilitation Center

Ironwood State Prison
Chuckawalla Valley State Prison

Blythe

Calipatria State Prison
El Centro

Centinela State Prison

San Diego
x R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility

Sources:  California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Web site and associate director over missions, Division of Adult Institutions.
Note:  Institution locations are approximate.
*	 Camp institutions are part of the general population levels II and III mission.

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

The text box provides a description of the
community correctional facilities and camps.
Institutions within the general population levels III
and IV mission must provide the same
opportunities for rehabilitation while safely
securing higher custody inmates. Institutions
assigned the high security and transitional housing
mission provide housing for the most violent and
dangerous offenders, while providing them
opportunities to transition to lower custody
designations by accepting personal responsibility
for their actions through behavior‑based
multilevel programming.

Other Types of Facilities
Adult conservation camps are located throughout the State
in rural or wilderness areas. Under the management of adult
institutions inmates assigned to camps are dispatched to
fight wildland fires or work on other community projects.
Community correctional facilities are contracted facilities
within the State housing less violent inmates.
Sources:  California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation’s (Corrections) Web site, July 2009, and
Corrections’ Inmate Population, Rehabilitation, and Housing
Management Plan, July 2006.

Institutions with a higher security level also
contain specialized units that increase custody staffing and health
care costs. For instance, facilities assigned to the high security
and transitional housing mission have all of the secure housing
unit programs. According to Corrections’ operation manual,
an inmate is placed in a secure housing unit when displaying
conduct that endangers the safety of others or the security of the
institution. These units provide more secure housing while also
housing inmates with high custody designations; consequently,
they require a greater amount of individual supervision by custody
staff. Additionally, the associate warden for the general population
levels III and IV mission stated that several institutions within
this mission have specialized medical and mental health units,
increasing inmate health care costs at those institutions. For
example, Mule Creek State Prison has an enhanced outpatient care
program, which, as we discuss in Chapter 1, appears to increase the
inmate adult health care costs for that institution.
The Inmate Classification Process
When an inmate is received into one of Corrections’ reception
centers, the inmate’s criminal history; life history; social history;
and medical, dental, physiological, and mental health history are
compiled and evaluated. Through this process, the reception center
staff determine the inmate’s security level and identifies any specific
placement needs. Based on these factors, it then assigns the inmate
to an adult institution.
Although Corrections determines an inmate’s custody designation;
need for education, vocational training, or a work program; and
credit‑earning eligibility through the initial classification process,
it also reevaluates this information at least once a year during the
inmate’s prison term. Inmates’ custody designations are a factor

11

12

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Figure 2
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Housing and Supervision Requirements for
Different Security Levels and Custody Designations
Requirements for Security Levels
Facility Security Level I

Inmate Custody Designations
Minimum A or B
• Cells or dormitory housing within facility security perimeter.*
• Supervision to ensure the inmate is present.†
• Assignments and activities may be inside or outside the facility
security perimeter.

• Open dormitory facilities and camps.
• Low security perimeter.

Facility Security Level II
• Open dormitory facilities.
• Secure perimeter.
• May include armed coverage.

Medium A or B
• Cells or dormitory housing within facility security perimeter.
• Frequent and direct supervision.
• Assignments and activities within security perimeter.

Facility Security Level III

• Celled housing unit‡ facilities.
• Secure perimeter.
• Armed coverage.

Close A or B

Facility Security Level IV
• Level III type housing or cell block housing
with cells not adjacent to exterior walls.
• Secure perimeter.
• Internal and external armed coverage.

• Cells within levels III or IV facilities§ in housing units within an
established facility security perimeter.
(For Close B: cells within designated institutions in housing units
within an established facility security perimeter.)
• Direct and constant supervision.
• Limited program assignment and activity hours.

Maximum
• Cells within a segregated program housing unit.
• Direct supervision and control under custody staff.
• Assignments and activities shall be within the confines of approved
segregated program housing unit.

Sources:  California Code of Regulations, Title 15, sections 3377 and 3377.1.
*	 Minimum B can be housed on facility grounds or in a camp, a community correctional facility, or a minimum support facility.
†	 Minimum A requires at least hourly observation at a minimum if assigned outside the facility security perimeter.
‡	 Cells adjacent to exterior walls.
§	 Female inmates shall be housed in cells or close custody dormitories.

in establishing where they are housed as well as the level of
staff supervision required to ensure institutional security and
public safety.
Nearly all inmates are eligible to enroll in education, vocational,
and other rehabilitation programs; however, multiple factors can
affect program assignment. State regulations direct Corrections to
consider various factors when determining the inmate’s program
assignments, such as an inmate’s expressed desires and needs, the
inmate’s eligibility for and availability of desired work or program
activity, safekeeping of the inmate, and the institution’s security
and operational needs. In addition, according to the chief of
Corrections’ Classification Unit, inmates’ custody designations
directly affect their ability to enroll in programs by limiting which
areas of an institution they may pass through. For example, an
inmate whose custody designation requires him to be under direct

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

and constant supervision within a security level III area of the
institution would not be permitted to participate in a vocational
landscaping program outside of the institution’s secure perimeter.
Further, state law requires Corrections to prescribe rules and
regulations ensuring that all able‑bodied inmates are engaged in
labor each and every day of their prison terms. State regulations
provide an exception to this requirement for inmates who have
been determined to be temporarily or permanently medically
disabled. California regulations further specify that every
able‑bodied inmate is obligated to work, which may include a
full day of work, education, or other program activity, or any
combination thereof.
According to state regulations, inmates eligible to earn one day
of credit for each day of assigned work or program attendance
(day‑for‑day), are given first priority for program assignments.
All inmates earning less than a day‑for‑day credit—for example,
inmates sentenced under the requirements of the three strikes law,
who receive one day of credit for five days of participation—are
given a lower priority. Finally, inmates’ behavior and special needs
can affect where they are housed and, therefore, their ability to
enroll in certain programs.
California’s Out‑of‑State Correctional Facilities Program
Due to overcrowding in its 33 adult institutions, the governor
issued an emergency proclamation in October 2006 giving
Corrections the authority to immediately contract with and
transfer inmates to out‑of‑state correctional facilities. Additionally,
the proclamation authorized Corrections, after exhausting all
possibilities of voluntary transfers, to involuntarily transfer inmates
who meet specific criteria. On May 3, 2007, the governor approved
Assembly Bill 900, the Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation
Services Act of 2007, in part to address prison overcrowding.
The bill authorized Corrections to temporarily transfer inmates
to out‑of‑state facilities. The California Out of State Correctional
Facilities Program (out‑of‑state program), created within the
Division of Adult Institutions, is responsible for transferring
inmates out of state in order to temporarily reduce overcrowding.
According to the chief deputy warden for the out‑of‑state program,
the program began in October 2006, and Corrections began
transferring inmates to a facility in Tennessee in November 2006.
According to Corrections’ monthly population reports, it
transferred 273 inmates to Arizona during December 2006 and
January 2007. In August 2007 and February 2008, the out‑of‑state
program transferred inmates for the first time to Mississippi

13

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

and Oklahoma. During fiscal year 2007–08, the out‑of‑state
program housed an average daily population of 2,226 inmates,
with a total population of 4,305 inmates placed out of state as
of June 30, 2008. As Figure 3 shows, from November 2006 to
July 2009, the out‑of‑state population grew dramatically. According
to Corrections’ monthly population reports, as of July 2009,
7,856 inmates were located in five facilities within three states:
Arizona, Oklahoma, and Mississippi.
Figure 3
Population of Inmates Housed Out of State
November 2006 Through July 2009
8,000
Oklahoma

7,000
Average Daily Population

6,000
Mississippi
5,000
4,000
3,000
Arizona

2,000
1,000

Tennessee*
July 2009

May 2009

Mar 2009

Jan 2009

Nov 2008

Sep 2008

Jul 2008

May 2008

Mar 2008

Jan 2008

Nov 2007

Sep 2007

Jul 2007

May 2007

Mar 2007

Jan 2007

0
Nov 2006

14

Month
Source:  California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Monthly Report of Population, November 2006 through July 2009.
*	 By April 2009 all inmates housed in the Tennessee facility had been relocated to other out-of-state facilities or transferred back to California.

The Three Strikes Law
As shown in Figure 4, approximately 25 percent of the inmate
population in California institutions is currently made up of
individuals sentenced under the three strikes law. California enacted
the three strikes law in 1994,2 with the intent of ensuring longer
prison sentences and greater punishment for those who commit a
felony and were previously convicted of a serious or violent felony.

2	

The Legislature enacted the three strikes law in March 1994, and in November 1994 voters
approved Proposition 184 to enact a virtually identical version of the law.

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

The three strikes law provides a minimum sentence that is
double the sentence that a court would have imposed on a person
who is convicted of a felony and who also has one prior conviction
for a serious or violent felony; this type of offender is often referred
to as a second striker. The three strikes law also generally provides
a minimum sentence of 25 years to life imprisonment for someone
who is convicted of a felony and who has two or more prior
convictions for a serious or violent felony; this type of offender
is often referred to as a third striker. Courts commonly refer to a
person’s prior convictions for serious or violent felonies as strikes.
Figure 4
Striker Inmates as a Percentage of the Inmate Population and Time Line of the Three Strikes Law
Three strikes law enacted.

Percentage of Inmate Population

25%

Proposition 21 approved by voters,
expands the list of serious and
violent felonies.

Legislature further expands the list of
serious and violent felonies.

People v. Superior Court
(Romero) authorized a court to
dismiss a prior strike without a
prosecutor’s request.

3rd strikers
2nd strikers

20
15
10
5
0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year*

Sources:  California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Quarterly Second and Third Strike Inmate Population reports, and
Historical Trends, 1987–2007 report, sections of the California Penal Code, and court decision.
*	 Population as of December of each year.

The three strikes law specifies the offenses for which a prior felony
conviction counts as a strike. A prior conviction for an offense
that California law defines as a violent felony or a serious felony
counts as a strike. In addition, the three strikes law specifies that a
prior conviction for an offense committed in another jurisdiction
counts as a strike if the offense would have been punishable by
imprisonment in state prison in California and if the offense has all
the elements of a serious or violent felony as defined by California
law. The three strikes law further specifies that offenses committed
by juveniles may count as strikes in certain circumstances.
Although these juvenile offenses are not expressly defined as serious

15

16

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

or violent felonies, we use the term “serious or violent felony”
to describe any offense that could count as a strike. Appendix B
provides a list of all serious or violent felonies.
The list of offenses that may count as strikes has expanded since
California enacted the three strikes law in 1994. As Figure 4 shows,
in 2000 voters approved Proposition 21, which expanded the list
of offenses that constitute strikes. In 2006 the Legislature again
expanded this list of offenses. Under the three strikes law, of the
defendant’s prior convictions only those for serious or violent
felonies constitute strikes. A defendant subsequently convicted
of any felony, even a felony that is not a serious or violent felony,
may be sentenced under the three strikes law. For example, courts
have sentenced defendants who were convicted of felony petty
theft for shoplifting to 25 years to life imprisonment under the
three strikes law because they had at least two prior convictions
for serious or violent felonies. In People v. Romero,3 the defendant
had prior convictions dating back to the 1980s for burglary, hit
and run, battery on a peace officer, and lewd conduct with a child
under age 14. After Romero was convicted of felony petty theft
for stealing a magazine in 1999, he was sentenced to 25 years
to life imprisonment under the three strikes law because of his
prior convictions.
Although the three strikes law may result in circumstances like
Romero, the law allows prior strikes to be dismissed in certain
circumstances. Even if a prior felony conviction would otherwise
count as a strike, a prosecutor may ask a court not to count it as
a strike in the furtherance of justice or if insufficient evidence
exists to prove the prior felony conviction. Additionally, in 1996
the California Supreme Court held that a court may also decide,
without a request from a prosecutor, not to count a prior felony
conviction as a strike in the furtherance of justice.
In addition to the minimum prison sentences required under the
three strikes law, the law has other provisions that may affect
the size of California’s inmate population. For example, a second
or third striker may not be granted probation and may not be
committed to any facility other than a state prison. The law also
limits the amount of credits that striker inmates can earn against
their prison sentence for participation in work training or education
programs while in prison. Generally, striker inmates may earn only
a 20 percent credit against their sentences, while other inmates
may earn up to a 50 percent credit. Moreover, a striker defendant
convicted of multiple current offenses generally must serve
consecutive sentences rather than concurrent sentences.
3	

People v. Romero (2002) 99 Cal. App. 4th 1418.

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Education, Vocational, and Other Rehabilitation Programs
Corrections reported that it released more than 138,000 felons
onto parole in 2008. According to a 2009 Corrections’ report, nearly
60 percent of felons paroled for the first time in 2005 returned
to prison within three years. Corrections aims to reduce the
number of people returning to prison and to help inmates and
parolees improve their ability to successfully reintegrate into
the community by providing education, vocational, and other
rehabilitation programs to inmates through its Division of
Education, Vocations and Offender Programs and its Division of
Addiction and Recovery Services. The adult education, vocational,
and offender programs (inmate programs) are designed in part to
enable offenders to function better upon returning to society. As a
result, inmate programs can contribute to public safety. In addition,
the Division of Addiction and Recovery Services provides various
programs for substance abuse treatment and recovery for inmates.
Corrections’ accounting records show that it spent $428 million
during fiscal year 2007–08 to offer these programs to inmates.
The Division of Education, Vocations and Offender Programs
offers adult basic education, general education development,
and English language development programs as well as
nontraditional independent study and distance learning
opportunities. Many of these programs are offered at the majority
of California adult institutions. Additionally, some institutions
offer high school and computer lab courses. Nontraditional
education coursework, such as independent study and distance
learning, allows inmates who are not able to attend traditional
classes the opportunity to take part in education programs.
As of February 2009 Corrections reported that it had 27 different
types of active vocational programs that provide training to
inmates, enabling them to attain skills to help them obtain
employment and earn a livable wage upon reentering society.
According to the former acting deputy director, Corrections
attempts to offer vocational training for viable occupations that
allow inmates to attain nationally recognized certifications.
Vocational trade classes offered vary by institution. For example,
Avenal State Prison offers 14 vocational programs, which include
auto mechanics, carpentry, electronics, office machines, and small
engine repair. Of Corrections’ 33 adult institutions, 30 offer one or
more vocational programs.
The Division of Addiction and Recovery Services, created in 2007,
administers 44 rehabilitative programs, called substance abuse
programs. Corrections indicated that although these programs are
provided on a contract basis, Corrections’ staff are still necessary.
Corrections stated that at least one correctional counselor III

17

18

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

coordinates the substance abuse programs between the contractors
and the warden at any institution offering these programs. As of
February 2009 Corrections reported that at least one type of
substance abuse program was offered at 20 of the 33 adult
institutions, with a total capacity for serving 11,270 inmates.
According to Corrections, these programs were 86 percent filled,
with 9,718 inmates enrolled.
The Federal Court‑Appointed Receiver’s Role
Federal Court-Appointed Receiver’s Goals
1.	 Ensure timely access to health care services.
2.	 Establish a prison medical program that addresses a full
continuum of health care services.
3.	 Recruit, train, and retain a professional‑quality medical
care workforce.
4.	 Implement a quality assurance and continuous
improvement program.
5.	 Establish a medical support infrastructure.
6.	 Provide for necessary clinical, administrative and
housing facilities.
Source:  Federal court-appointed receiver’s Turnaround Plan of
Action, June 6, 2008.

In 2006 a federal court appointed a receiver to
provide leadership and executive management
over the California prison medical health care
system. In 2006 the receiver established the
California Prison Health Care Receivership
Corporation to assist with his responsibilities
for developing, implementing, and sustaining a
health care system that provides constitutionally
adequate medical care to all inmates. In
June 2008 the court approved the receiver’s
Turnaround Plan of Action, designed to address
the constitutional deficiencies in California’s
prison health care system. In the plan the receiver
focuses on six goals, as described in the text box.
The receiver uses the name California Prison
Health Care Services (Health Care Services) to
describe the organization he oversees.

One way in which Health Care Services plans to improve the
provision of specialty care is through the expanded use of
telemedicine. Basically, telemedicine is the delivery of medical
services through the use of multimedia technology such as voice,
video, and data. This allows the inmate and a medical specialist or
psychiatrist to meet through video conferencing. Currently, Health
Care Services uses telemedicine for 14 medical specialties. At each
institution, Corrections has at least one room equipped for the
purpose of telemedicine.
The Federal Court‑Ordered Plan to Reduce the Prison Population
To address the constitutionally inadequate mental and medical
health care available to inmates in the California prison system
and the threat to the health and safety of inmates posed by
overcrowding, in August 2009, a three‑judge federal court ordered
Corrections to provide the court with a plan that would reduce
the population of Corrections’ adult institutions over the next
two years. According to Corrections, this court order would require

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

a reduction of more than 40,000 inmates. In response to the court
order, the secretary of Corrections stated that Corrections believes
the federal courts are exceeding their authority under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, and Corrections will continue to fight
against a population cap or court‑ordered early release.
Scope and Methodology
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee requested that the Bureau
of State Audits evaluate the effect of California’s rapidly increasing
prison population on the state budget. We were asked to focus on
specific areas of Corrections’ operations to provide the Legislature
and the public with information necessary to make informed
decisions. Specifically, we were asked to do the following:
•	 Review the current cost to house inmates; stratify the costs by
their security level, age, gender, or any other relevant category
tracked by Corrections; and determine the reasons for any
significant cost variations among such levels and categories.
•	 Determine the number of inmates Corrections has sent to
other states and calculate the State’s cost and impact on
Corrections’ budget.
•	 Analyze Corrections’ budget to determine the amounts allocated
to vocational training, rehabilitation, and education programs.
•	 For a sample of institutions offering vocational training,
rehabilitation, and education programs, review Corrections’
system for determining the number of instructors and custody
staff needed for inmates to participate in these programs. If
such staffing is inadequate, determine if any inmates have been
denied access to these programs.
•	 To the extent possible, determine the costs for incarceration
under the three strikes law. At a minimum, determine the
incarceration cost for each of the following three scenarios:
•	 The third strike was not a serious and violent felony.
•	 One or more of the strikes was committed as a juvenile.
•	 Multiple strikes were committed during one criminal offense.
•	 Calculate annual overtime pay since 2002 for Corrections’
employees, including correctional officers and custody staff, and
investigate the reasons for significant fluctuations.

19

20

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

•	 Review the number of vacant positions during the last five years
and determine whether they affect the annual overtime costs and
whether filling vacancies would save Corrections money.
•	 Determine the extent to which Corrections currently uses
and plans to use telemedicine. Further, determine if by using
telemedicine Corrections is reducing inmate medical and
custody costs and the cost to transport and guard inmates
outside the prison environment.
To review the current cost to house inmates, we interviewed
Corrections’ accounting staff to gain an understanding of the
information and detail available in its accounting records and
obtained electronic accounting records for fiscal year 2007–08. We
then summarized this information by program and cost area. Using
information from Corrections’ Distributed Data Processing System,
we determined the average population in Corrections’ institutions
during fiscal year 2007–08 and determined average costs per
inmate. To stratify costs by relevant categories, we interviewed
Corrections’ staff to identify what inmate characteristics could be
associated with costs. We also analyzed the cost variances among
institutions and institution missions and identified potential causes
of these variances based on information obtained from interviews
with Corrections’ staff.
To determine the number of inmates Corrections has sent to
other states, we interviewed out‑of‑state program staff to gain an
understanding of the program. We also reviewed Corrections’
population reports for the out‑of‑state program. Finally, we
reviewed contracts with, and invoices from, out‑of‑state facilities,
identifying the number and costs of inmates transferred to
out‑of‑state facilities. To determine the impact of the out‑of‑state
program on the State’s budget, we determined the cost of housing
these inmates using Corrections’ accounting records and contracts
and invoices from out‑of‑state facilities. Finally, we calculated an
average cost per inmate for those inmates housed out of state and
compared that cost to certain aspects of the average cost for certain
Corrections’ institutions.
To determine the amounts allocated to vocational training,
rehabilitation, and education programs, we interviewed
accounting staff to gain an understanding of where these amounts
are recorded in the Governor’s Budget. Using the governor’s
budgets for fiscal years 2004–05 through 2009–10, we compiled
the amounts Corrections spent on its education, vocational,
and other rehabilitation programs for fiscal years 2002–03
through 2007–08. We also used the estimated and actual amounts
in the governor’s budgets for fiscal years 2008–09 and 2009–10.

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

In addition, we obtained information from Corrections’ budget staff
for amounts that could not be identified from information in the
governor’s budgets.
To review Corrections’ system for determining the number of
instructors and custody staff needed for inmates to participate
in vocational training, rehabilitation, and education programs,
we interviewed staff at institutions as well as key staff in various
units, including Corrections’ Division of Education, Vocations and
Offender Programs; Office of Correctional Education; Division
of Addiction and Recovery Services; and Adult Progams. To
understand requirements related to providing these programs,
we reviewed state laws and regulations, and Corrections’
policies. We attempted to obtain information to determine if any
inmates were denied access to these programs but were told that
such information was not available.
To determine the cost of incarcerating inmates under the three
strikes law, referred to hereafter as striker inmates, we first
reviewed relevant laws and regulations. Using Corrections’
Offender Based Information System, we identified the population
of striker inmates. We then compared striker inmates’ current
prison terms to the terms they might have received if the three
strikes law did not exist. Using the average cost per inmate, we
estimated the cost of additional sentencing under the three strikes
law. In conducting our analysis we did not consider factors such as
recidivism—the likelihood that a prisoner will return to prison for
committing another crime after being released—or other factors
that could increase or decrease prison terms, such as the difference
in credit‑earning status. We omitted the effect of these factors
because they depend upon inmate behavior, which is difficult to
predict and may differ between striker inmates and other inmates.
When calculating the additional years of incarceration of inmates
who received life sentences, we noted their age at incarceration and
estimated the number of years they would serve if they reached
77.7 years of age, the average American life span as reported by
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.4 Additionally, we
stratified the striker inmate and non‑striker inmate populations by
age and compared the frequency of age groups of each population.
To calculate the annual overtime pay since 2002 for Corrections’
adult operations employees, including correctional officers and
other custody staff, we interviewed accounting staff to gain an
understanding of how Corrections records overtime expenses in
the State’s accounting system. After obtaining accounting records

4	

On August 19, 2009, subsequent to our analysis, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
reported that the U.S. life expectancy has risen to 77.9 years of age.

21

22

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

for fiscal years 2003–04 through 2007–08, we identified the
proportion of total overtime charged by custody staff. Because
custody staff represented 96 percent of the overtime charged in
fiscal year 2007–08, we chose to focus our remaining analysis on
custody staff exclusively. To identify fluctuations in annual overtime
pay, we stratified custody staff overtime expenses by institution
and overtime category. After identifying the fluctuations, we
interviewed Corrections’ support staff to gain an understanding
of the reasons for the fluctuations, as well as the general trends in
overtime budgeting and usage.
To determine whether the number of vacant positions affects
the annual overtime costs, we reviewed Corrections’ policies
and procedures on staffing and interviewed key management.
To determine whether filling those vacant positions could save
Corrections money, we determined the hourly cost of a new
employee, which includes salary and benefits as well as the cost
of recruiting, training, and equipping the new employee. We then
compared the hourly rate of a new employee with the hourly rate
for overtime. Based on the results of this analysis, we reviewed
factors that contribute to the cost of an hour of work performed by
a new employee.
To determine the extent to which Corrections currently uses and
plans to use telemedicine, we interviewed key management
and staff at Health Care Services to gain an understanding
of the current and historical use of telemedicine. We also
reviewed the results of a study completed in February 2008 by a
consultant with whom Health Care Services contracted to provide
recommendations for improving Corrections’ telemedicine
program. We interviewed staff to ascertain which recommendations
Health Care Services is planning to implement and the status of
action taken on those recommendations. Additionally, to determine
the number and nature of telemedicine visits, we reviewed reports
by Health Care Services related to telemedicine provided. Finally,
to determine whether Corrections’ use of telemedicine is reducing
costs, we reviewed its methodology for calculating the cost to
transport and guard an inmate taken to an appointment outside
the institution.
We relied upon various electronic data in performing this audit. The
U.S. Government Accountability Office, whose standards we follow,
requires us to assess the reliability of computer‑processed data. To
determine the additional cost of inmates incarcerated under the
three strikes law, we used information from the Offender Based
Information System. We assessed the reliability of the Offender
Based Information System by performing electronic testing of key
data elements and by testing the accuracy of the data. To test the
accuracy of the data we selected a random sample of inmates and

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

traced key data elements to source documents. However, we did
not conduct completeness testing because the source documents
required for this testing are stored at the 33 institutions located
throughout the State. Therefore we concluded that this data was of
undetermined reliability for the purposes of this audit.
To allocate training and recruiting costs, we obtained information
on the number of correctional officers that graduated from the
correctional academy. We assessed the reliability of the Cadet
Database by testing the accuracy and completeness of the data. To
test the completeness of the data, we judgmentally sampled files
and ensured that the cadets were listed in the database. To test the
accuracy of the data, we selected a random sample of cadets and
traced key data elements to source documents. Using the results of
that testing, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable
for the purposes of this audit.
We determined that the data we obtained from the State
Controller’s Office payroll system was sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of presenting data on overtime and the cost of a new
correctional officer. We assessed the reliability of the payroll
data by performing electronic testing of key data elements. In
addition, we reviewed testing of the payroll system’s major control
features performed as a part of the State’s financial and federal
compliance audits.
We determined the accounting records data for fiscal years 2003–04
through 2007–08 from Corrections to be of undetermined
reliability for the purpose of calculating the cost of incarcerating an
inmate as well as for analyzing and categorizing overtime‑related
expenditure data. This determination is based on the fact that we
found no material errors in our electronic testing of required data
elements. However, we did not conduct accuracy or completeness
testing because the source documents required for this testing are
stored at seven regional offices or 33 institutions located throughout
the State. To obtain some assurance regarding the completeness of
this information, we compared the total amount of expenditures
in the records we received for fiscal years 2007–08 and 2006–07
to paper records. However, we did not perform this procedure for
earlier fiscal years in our analysis because we were unable to obtain
the relevant information for fiscal years prior to 2006–07.
We also found the Distributed Data Processing System data from
Corrections to be of undetermined reliability for the purpose of
calculating the average daily population of inmates at a particular
institution. This determination is based on the fact that we found no
material errors in our electronic testing of required data elements.

23

24

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

However, we did not conduct accuracy or completeness testing
because the source documents required for this testing are stored at
the 33 institutions located throughout the State.
In a subsequent report we plan to provide additional information
on several of the subjects we were asked to review, including the
size and additional costs of specific portions of the population of
striker inmates. Specifically, we plan to identify how many striker
inmates received at least one strike as a juvenile, received multiple
strikes in the commission of one criminal offense, or received a
sentence under the three strikes law although the most recent crime
committed was not classified as a serious or violent felony. Using
this information, we plan to determine the cost of the additional
years of incarceration due to three strikes for these individuals.
In addition, we plan to compare the cost of medical specialty
health care provided to striker and non‑striker inmates. We also
plan to provide additional information on medical specialty visits
similar to the types of consultations that Health Care Services is
currently providing through telemedicine and their associated
costs. Finally, we plan to provide additional information related to
vacant positions.

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Chapter 1
A LACK OF ACCURATE DATA COMPLICATES
IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS THAT
AFFECT THE AVERAGE ANNUAL COST PER INMATE
Chapter Summary
The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Corrections)
spent more than $8 billion in fiscal year 2007–08 to incarcerate
inmates. Although the overall average cost to incarcerate an inmate
is over $49,000 per year, costs per inmate varied significantly from
institution to institution. Corrections organizes its institutions into
five missions, based on factors such as the primary function and
security level of the institution. As one might expect, the average
cost per inmate at some institutions was higher due to the necessity
of providing a more secure housing environment. However, the
costs among institutions within the same general mission varied
significantly as well. Much of the cost variation appears to be
related to additional medical and housing, security, and support
costs. Corrections indicated that higher costs in many institutions
are attributable to specialized units within the institutions that
require more correctional officers and medical care. Although we
were able to identify factors that can contribute to costs, we found
that Corrections does not track information in sufficient detail to
allow it to determine how more specific inmate populations or
institutional characteristics affect its costs.
We also found that Corrections’ costs totaled nearly $65 million in
fiscal year 2007–08 to transport and house inmates in out‑of‑state
facilities in order to avoid the unsafe conditions caused by housing
them in prison areas such as gymnasiums, dayrooms, and program
rooms that were not designed for inmates that were a security risk
and needed to be housed in cells. The average cost of housing each
of these inmates in fiscal year 2007–08 was $29,100. The inmates
transferred out of state must meet certain criteria, and Corrections’
focus is to transfer inmates who must be housed in cells but do
not have serious mental, medical, dental, or behavioral conditions.
However, because Corrections does not track information in
sufficient detail to allow it to determine the costs of specific inmate
populations, the exact impact on Corrections’ budget of housing
these inmates out of state is unclear. Nevertheless, using the average
cost of inmates housed in certain institutions that hold similar
populations, we calculated that Corrections is spending between
$3,200 and $7,800 more on each inmate housed in its institutions.

25

26

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Corrections spent $431 million on overtime for custody staff in
fiscal year 2007–08. Overtime costs have risen significantly over
the last five years. One factor causing this change is salary increases
received by correctional officers totaling 26 percent over the course
of 30 months between July 2004 and January 2007. This caused a
corresponding increase of $88 million in overtime costs. An increase
in the amount spent on guarding for medical purposes contributed
another $111 million in increased overtime costs. Some of these costs
may be related to the way in which hours worked were classified in the
past. Specifically, previous labor agreements allowed leave taken by an
employee to be included as time worked for the purpose of calculating
overtime. However, legislation enacted in February 2009 changed that
practice. Although this recent change may reduce the number of hours
classified as overtime, we found that under the current pay structure
the hourly cost of overtime for the highest‑paid correctional officers is
slightly less than the hourly rate of hiring additional officers, due in part
to the increased costs of retirement benefits, which have significantly
increased the cost to the State of hiring additional correctional officers.
Finally, we found that about 25 percent of the inmate population has
been sentenced under the requirements of the three strikes law. These
individuals, referred to in this report as striker inmates, serve longer
sentences than if they had not been sentenced under the three strikes
law. By comparing the sentences these inmates received to what
they might have received without the three strikes law, we estimated
that the increase in sentence length represents an additional cost of
nearly $19.2 billion over the duration of these inmates’ incarceration.
Additionally, our analysis of the current striker population shows that
the most frequent age group for striker inmates is more than 10 years
older than the most frequent age group for inmates not serving
a striker sentence. According to available research, older inmates
require additional health care, which leads to higher health care costs.
However, this analysis does not take into account several factors
that are dependent upon inmate behavior, such as recidivism rates,
meaning the likelihood that an inmate, once released, will be returned
to prison for reoffending. As such, it is possible that without the
three strikes law, many of the inmates who would have been released
earlier might have returned to prison.
The Average Annual Cost to Incarcerate an Inmate In Fiscal
Year 2007–08 was $49,300

The total costs to incarcerate
California’s adult inmates
exceeded $8 billion during
fiscal year 2007–08.

During fiscal year 2007–08, Corrections spent more than $5.2 billion
on housing, security, and support of its average daily population of
163,000 inmates housed in its 33 adult institutions across the State.
With an additional $2.1 billion to cover health care costs; $428 million
for education, vocational, and other rehabilitation programs;
and $241 million in administration, the total costs to incarcerate
California’s adult inmates exceeded $8 billion during that fiscal year.

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

In addition to the costs classified as administration, it is important
to note that there are additional expenditures totalling $1.1 billion
within the other cost areas that we were unable to attribute to
specific institutions. As shown in Appendix A, we have labeled
these amounts, which are primarily costs charged to Corrections’
headquarters, as unallocated support and administration
expenditures. Expenditures within this category include funds
for headquarters support units such as accounting and
training; $145 million in support of Corrections’ inmate health care;
$137 million for office support for the federally appointed receiver;
and $329 million for facilities planning, design, and construction
management. In addition, some of these costs are for the support of
institutions, including $154 million for substance abuse programs
provided at some institutions, $12 million for inmate classification
services, and $38 million for Corrections’ transportation unit.
Although Corrections does not associate these costs with specific
institutions, in an attempt to more accurately disclose the true costs
of incarcerating an inmate, we allocated these dollars among the
inmates at all 33 institutions.
Overall, California spent, on average, more than $49,000 per
inmate during fiscal year 2007–08. Although we were able to
calculate this average cost per inmate using Corrections’ accounting
records, Corrections does not track costs in a manner that would
allow us to stratify the costs of incarcerating inmates by specific
characteristics, such as security level, age, or other factors. Rather,
Corrections tracks costs at the institution level regardless of
any specific inmate characteristic. We discuss the implications
of this limitation later in the chapter. Nevertheless, as shown in
Appendix A, our analysis of Corrections’ accounting records
revealed that individual institutions within the
same mission vary significantly in their costs to
incarcerate inmates.
The estimated average annual cost per individual
for other populations under Corrections’
supervision is shown in the text box. The cost
per juvenile is considerably higher than that of
other populations, in part because—according
to staff ratios in the Governor’s Budget—juvenile
justice facilities had three staff members for
every two juvenile wards in fiscal year 2007–08.
According to the Governor’s Budget, the population
of juvenile wards numbered nearly 2,300 in
fiscal year 2007–08. This small number may also
contribute to higher costs because the fixed costs
related to the population of juvenile wards are
spread over a smaller population.

Estimated Average Annual Cost Per Individual
for Other Corrections’ Populations
POPULATION

Adult parolees
Juveniles
Juvenile parolees

PER INDIVIDUAL COST

$6,085
$204,712
$12,474

Sources:  Bureau of State Audits’ calculation based on unaudited
data from the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation’s accounting records for fiscal year 2007–08
and average daily populations for fiscal year 2007–08 from
the 2009–10 Governor’s Budget.
Note:  Average cost does not include administrative costs.

27

28

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Corrections spent 80 percent of its $10 billion in expenditures
in fiscal year 2007–08 on adult inmates, with an average annual
cost per inmate of $49,300. To determine this cost we allocated
the actual expenditures for the 2007–08 fiscal year directly
related to adult operations, as well as a proportionate amount of
Corrections’ overall headquarters administration costs, among
the 163,000 inmates—the average daily population housed in its
33 adult institutions. As shown in Table 2, the largest category of
cost was more than $32,000 per inmate spent on housing, security,
and support. Additionally, on average, each inmate cost the State
$13,000 for health care and more than $2,600 for education,
vocational, and other rehabilitation programs.
Table 2
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Total Adult
Incarceration Costs and Average Incarceration Cost Per Inmate by Cost Area
Fiscal Year 2007–08
TOTAL COST

AVERAGE COST
PER INMATE*

$2,701,569,623

$16,555

1,189,691,809

7,290

Overtime pay

449,272,181

2,753

Facilities and operations

895,302,235

5,486

$5,235,835,848

$32,084

EXPENDITURE

Inmate Housing, Security, and Support
Regular pay
Benefits and other pay

Subtotals
Inmate Health Care
Total pay and benefits

$983,725,818

$6,028

External contracts

637,080,038

3,904

Health care supplies

198,542,358

1,217

Facilities and other operations

324,221,974

1,987

$2,143,570,188

$13,136

$428,344,891

$2,625

Subtotals
Education, Vocational, and Other Rehabilitation
Headquarters Overall Administration†
Totals

$240,543,458

$1,474

$8,048,294,385

$49,319

Sources:  Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation’s (Corrections) accounting records and Distributed Data Processing System (DDPS)
average daily inmate population for fiscal year 2007–08.
Notes:  This table does not include Corrections Standards Authority expenditures of $221 million
and capital outlay of $150 million some of which may be associated with adult operations. Because
Corrections’ accounting data do not associate these amounts with adult institutions, we did not
allocate these costs.
Amounts in this table do not include some costs which are associated with California out-of-state
facilities and community correctional facilities. Thus, the amounts do not agree with Table 1 which
includes these costs.
*	 The average cost per inmate is determined using the total average daily inmate population in the
33 institutions.
†	 The headquarters overall administration cost in this table includes amounts we allocated to adult
operations only; therefore, it does not agree with the amount shown for administration in Table 1.

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Based on Corrections’ accounting records, we identified
$241 million in headquarters overall administration costs.5 However,
Corrections does not allocate its administration expenditures to
the specific operations that it serves, such as adult, parole, and
juvenile operations. According to the deputy director of Corrections’
Office of Fiscal Services, Corrections does not allocate these costs to
institutions, nor does it have a method to do so. However, the deputy
director agreed on the reasonableness of allocating the costs based
on a proportion of Corrections’ total operating expenditures, and as
a result the average cost per inmate, as shown in Table 2, included an
additional $1,474 for fiscal year 2007–08.
Costs Vary Significantly Among Institutions
Although the average cost per inmate for fiscal year 2007–08 was
$49,300, the cost per inmate varied significantly among institutions.
A variety of factors, including the institution’s mission, health
care emphasis, and design of its facilities, can contribute to higher
costs. Some institutions, such as those within a high security
and transitional housing mission—which house the most violent
and dangerous male offenders—have higher costs than others.
However, although the functions of the five institution missions
described in the Introduction can affect the cost to house inmates,
the average annual cost to incarcerate inmates varies at institutions
within the same mission. For example, those institutions with an
inmate health care emphasis have significantly higher costs due
to the medical and mental health care they provide. We were
also able to determine that female inmates are more costly on
average, but because they are such a small portion of the total
inmate population, the cost difference has relatively little impact on
Corrections’ total costs.
The Primary Function of an Institution’s Mission Appears to Affect
Its Costs
Our analysis of Corrections’ accounting records revealed wide
variations in the average annual cost per inmate for some of
the different mission types. As described in the Introduction,
Corrections assigns each institution a mission based on factors
such as its primary function or security level of its facilities, physical
design of the institution, gender of the inmates it houses, and
presence of specialized housing units. Our review of the average

5	

Corrections’ overall administration costs of $291 million, as shown in Table 1 on page 8, serves
various operational areas. Considering that adult operations represents 83 percent of Corrections’
operational expenditures excluding administrative expenses, we allocated 83 percent of the total
administrative costs, or $241 million, to adult institutions based on their average daily inmate
population for fiscal year 2007–08 as shown in Table 2 and Appendix A.

Although the average cost per
inmate for fiscal year 2007–08 was
$49,300, the cost per inmate varied
significantly among institutions.

29

30

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

The average total cost per inmate
housed in high security and
transitional housing was more
than $58,000, while inmates in
general population levels II and III
institutions had an average cost of
$42,000 for fiscal year 2007–08.

annual cost per inmate by mission for fiscal year 2007–08 indicates
that certain types of missions are more costly than others. For
instance, institutions within a high security and transitional housing
mission generally have a higher cost per inmate than institutions
within other missions. As shown in Table 3, the average total cost
per inmate housed in an institution classified as high security and
transitional housing was more than $58,000 for fiscal year 2007–08,
while an inmate in a general population levels II and III institution
had an average cost of $42,000 for the same year.
The largest difference in cost is related to inmate housing, security,
and support. According to the deputy director of Corrections’
Office of Fiscal Services, although the security level of inmates will
influence costs, due to a higher number of security staff in higher
security areas, costs are also driven to a great extent by the age and
design of the facility in which the inmate is housed. Newer facilities
are designed to reduce the number of custody staff, which therefore
reduces the costs to house inmates in these facilities. While we can
identify the average annual cost per inmate of an institution within
the high security and transitional housing mission, as we discuss in
more detail later in this chapter, because Corrections’ accounting
records track cost information only at the institution level, we
cannot determine if the higher average annual cost per inmate is
due to the institution’s mission or to other factors such as the age
and design of the institution.
Our analysis showed that some institutions had significantly higher
average annual inmate costs than other institutions within the
same mission. Although institutions have one primary mission,
the characteristics of the inmates and institutions differ. For
instance, as shown on page 80 in Appendix A, within the general
population levels III and IV mission California State Prison,
Centinela (Centinela), had an average annual cost per inmate
of $43,100, while the average cost at Mule Creek State Prison
(Mule Creek) was $50,800. Although these two institutions are
within the same mission, Mule Creek has a significantly higher
number of inmates housed in administrative segregation, a
special housing unit apart from an institution’s general inmate
population for supervision and control of inmates who endanger
institutional security or the safety of themselves or others.
According to Corrections’ Web site, Centinela houses 350 inmates
in administrative segregation, whereas Mule Creek houses more
than 900 in this type of housing unit. Additionally, according to
the associate warden over the general population levels III and IV
mission, Mule Creek’s housing consists primarily of sensitive needs
yards—which provide housing for inmates that, for safety reasons,
should not be intermixed with the general inmate population—as
well as a minimum support facility that houses inmates with lower
custody designations.

10,831

1,770
1,262

Health care supplies

Facilities and other operations

28%

15

3%

4%

28%

3

3

8

14%

50%

6

4

12

$51,483

6,519

$1,474

$1,358

$12,319

340

1,389

4,188

$6,402

$29,813

2,847

3,190

7,330

$16,446

36,750

13

3%

3%

24%

1

3

8

12%

57%

5

6

14

32%

RECEPTION CENTER

$38,485

6,518

$1,474

$1,050

$4,642

597

267

1,403

$2,375

$24,801

5,514

2,810

5,221

$11,256

12,287

17

4%

3%

13%

2

1

4

6%

64%

14

7

14

29%

CAMP INSTITUTIONS

$41,849

6,518

$1,474

$1,533

$7,989

74

729

3,483

$3,703

$24,335

2,584

2,419

5,930

$13,402

36,483

16

4%

4%

19%

<1

2

8

9%

58%

6

6

14

32%

GENERAL POPULATION
INSTITUTIONS

$50,105

6,522

$1,474

$1,569

$13,200

893

1,637

4,428

$6,242

$27,340

2,663

2,363

6,871

$15,443

35,481

13

3%

3%

26%

2

3

9

12%

55%

5

5

14

31%

GENERAL
POPULATION
LEVELS III AND IV

$58,109

6,522

$1,474

$1,239

$13,370

1,392

1,287

3,822

$6,869

$35,504

3,444

2,949

9,084

$20,027

31,358

11

3%

2%

23%

2

2

7

12%

61%

6

5

16

34%

HIGH SECURITY
AND TRANSITIONAL
HOUSING

Sources:  Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (Corrections) accounting records and Distributed Data Processing System (DDPS) average daily inmate
population for fiscal year 2007–08.
Notes:  This table does not include Corrections Standards Authority expenditures of $221 million and capital outlay of $150 million, some of which may be associated with adult operations. Because Corrections’
accounting records do not associate these amounts with adult institutions, we did not allocate these costs.
Some percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.
*	 Corrections does not allocate this category of costs to specific adult institutions. However, because these costs support adult operations, we allocated these amounts to all adult institutions using the average
daily population for fiscal year 2007–08 for the mission that each institution is assigned. Additionally, the amounts allocated to each mission differ because there were some headquarters costs that we were
able to allocate to specific missions.

$51,405

7,512

Average Cost Per Inmate

$1,474

Unallocated support
and administration*

$2,198

Total administration

Headquarters Costs

Education, Vocational, and 
Other Rehabilitation Costs

$14,476

4,092

Subtotals

$7,352

External contracts

$25,745

2,951

2,235

6,239

$14,320

Total pay and benefits

Inmate Health Care Costs

Subtotals

Facilities and operations

Overtime pay

Benefits and other pay

Regular pay

Inmate Housing, Security, and Support Costs

Average daily population

FEMALE OFFENDERS

GENERAL POPULATION
LEVELS II AND III AND CAMPS

INSTITUTION MISSION

Table 3
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Average Cost Per Inmate by Institution Mission Type Based on Average Daily Populations
Fiscal Year 2007–08

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

31

32

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Inmates who need to be moved out of the institution’s minimum
support facility must be placed in the administrative segregation
unit because they cannot be housed in the sensitive needs yards.
Additionally, Mule Creek has an enhanced outpatient program,
which the mission’s associate warden indicated is one factor that
contributes to the institution’s increased costs of health care,
whereas Centinela has no enhanced outpatient program or any
other mental health care units.
Institutions With an Inmate Health Care Emphasis Are the Most Costly
The average annual cost for an
inmate at California Medical
Facility and California State Prison,
Sacramento—institutions having
additional medical and mental
health units—was $83,300 and
$80,200, respectively, for fiscal
year 2007–08.

Medical and mental health care facilities at some institutions
appear to contribute to higher average costs per inmate. For
example, two institutions that have additional medical and mental
health units are California Medical Facility and California State
Prison, Sacramento. Based on our analysis presented in Appendix A
on pages 80 and 81, the average annual cost for an inmate at
these two institutions was $83,300 and $80,200, respectively,
for fiscal year 2007–08. According to the associate warden for
levels III and IV general population programs and a correctional
counselor specialist at California State Prison, Sacramento, these
two institutions provide medical and mental health care to inmates
that have significant health issues, and they require additional
custody staff because of the institutions’ specialized units.
One of these institutions, California State Prison, Sacramento,
which is within the high security and transitional housing mission,
houses, among other types of inmates, inmates with a maximum
custody designation serving long sentences and inmates who
have proven to be management problems at other institutions.
Additionally, California State Prison, Sacramento, serves as a
medical hub for Northern California, with psychiatric services,
enhanced outpatient, and enhanced outpatient administrative
segregation units. The institution currently has an outpatient
housing unit and a correctional treatment center. As shown in
Appendix A, California State Prison, Sacramento, spent $47,600
per inmate on custody and housing and $23,400 per inmate for
health care.
Our analysis of Corrections’ accounting records shows that
institutions with medical and mental health units have higher costs
per inmate; however, Corrections does not associate costs with
specific units within an institution. For this reason Corrections
is unable to determine the extent to which these units increase
costs or the extent to which increased costs are attributable to
other factors.

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Although Female Inmates Cost More on Average, They Represent Less
Than 10 Percent of the Total Inmate Population
Gender is one of the categories for which we were able to stratify
and analyze Corrections’ costs. As shown in Table 4, in fiscal
year 2007–08 the average cost per male inmate was $49,200 and
the average cost per female inmate was $51,400. Female inmates
have higher health care costs, averaging $14,500 per inmate versus
the $11,100 average spent on a male inmate. Also, according to
Corrections, the institutions that house female inmates offer
Table 4
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Average Cost Per
Inmate by Gender Based on Average Daily Population
Fiscal Year 2007–08
Average daily population

152,359

10,831
AVERAGE COST
PER INMATE*

EXPENDITURE

MALE

FEMALE

Inmate Housing, Security, and Support
Regular pay

$15,802

$14,320

Benefits and other pay

7,079

6,239

Overtime pay

2,733

2,235

Facilities and operations
Subtotals

3,079

2,951

$28,693

$25,745

Inmate Health Care
Total pay and benefits

$5,490

$7,352

External contracts

3,775

4,092

Health care supplies

1,177

1,770

Facilities and other operations
Subtotals
Education, Vocational, and Other Rehabilitation

642

1,262

$11,084

$14,476

$1,400

$2,198

$1,474

$1,474

6,520

7,512

$49,171

$51,405

Headquarters
Overall administration
Unallocated support and administration†
Total Average Cost Per Inmate

Sources:  Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation’s (Corrections) accounting records and Distributed Data Processing System (DDPS)
average daily inmate population for fiscal year 2007–08.
Notes:  This table does not include Corrections Standards Authority expenditures of $221 million
and capital outlay of $150 million, some of which may be associated with adult operations. Because
Corrections’ accounting records do not associate these amounts with adult institutions, we did not
allocate these costs.
*	 The average cost per inmate is determined using the total average daily inmate population in
Corrections’ 33 adult institutions.
†	 Corrections does not allocate this category of costs to specific adult institutions. However,
because these costs support adult operations, we allocated these amounts to all adult institutions
using the average daily population for fiscal year 2007–08 for the mission that each institution
is assigned. Additionally, the amounts allocated to each mission differ because there were some
headquarters costs that we were able to allocate to specific missions.

33

34

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

additional programs that address issues specific to female inmates
and increase opportunities for successful reintegration into their
communities while reducing the number of females incarcerated in
California. For fiscal year 2007–08, the average cost for education,
vocational, and other rehabilitation programs for a male inmate was
$1,400, whereas the average for a female inmate was $2,200.
While the total average cost of incarceration was higher for female
inmates, the average cost for housing, security, and support was less
than for male inmates. Although institutions within the reception
center mission, as described in the Introduction, process only
male inmates, each of Corrections’ three women’s institutions has
a reception center. Additionally, all three women’s institutions can
house all security levels within the institution. Further, according
to the associate director of the female offenders mission, these
institutions do not segregate inmates by custody designations.
Although the average annual cost for a female inmate is greater
than for a male inmate, female inmates represent only 7 percent of
the inmates in Corrections’ 33 adult institutions. As a result, the
difference between the average annual costs for male and female
inmates does not significantly increase Corrections’ total costs.
Corrections Cannot Determine the Impact of Inmate Characteristics
on Incarceration Costs

Corrections’ ability to compare
inmate populations and the
costs for those populations
is limited because it does not
track or determine the impact
of inmate characteristics
such as age, security level, or
custody designation.

Although Corrections houses inmates of various security levels at
its 33 institutions, according to the deputy director of the Office
of Fiscal Services, Corrections does not track costs by individual
inmate or by specific inmate populations such as security level
or age. As discussed earlier in this chapter, using Corrections’
accounting records we can generalize costs by mission and
institution, but the records are not sufficiently detailed to stratify
costs and identify the impact on housing costs of various inmate
characteristics such as security level, age, or custody designation.
Corrections’ accounting records identify only cost categories at
each institution, as presented in Appendix A, related to inmate
housing, health care, and program costs. Because Corrections
does not determine the impact of inmate characteristics such
as age, security level, or custody designation on housing costs,
Corrections’ ability to compare inmate populations and the cost of
those populations is limited. Similarly, because Corrections does
not specifically track the costs of institution characteristics such as
the physical design or the presence of specialized units that increase
costs, its ability to compare the costs to operate one institution
versus another is also limited.

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

According to its Program Support Unit’s user guide for the master
assignment roster—which identifies custody staff that work in
each position and shift at all locations responsible for guarding
inmates—Corrections’ institution staff are responsible for managing
their staffing for daily operations using the master assignment
roster. The Program Support Unit—which provides analysis and
guidance to the Division of Adult Institutions on issues related to
fiscal, budgetary, personnel, inmate population, and institution
resource needs, among other things—is responsible for reviewing
custody position staffing at the 33 adult institutions. However,
according to the chief of the Program Support Unit (unit chief ),
each institution has a stand‑alone system, and the data is not
available on a statewide basis. Further, he stated that the Program
Support Unit has not associated costs with staffing levels in the past
because no request was made to identify the costs associated with
facility or inmate security to determine a cost by level.
However, the unit chief also told us that Corrections is in the
process of developing a new automated solution that will allow for
statewide data analysis. When we asked the unit chief about the
Program Support Unit’s plan for using the new automated system,
he told us that the unit does not know all the capabilities of the
new system. However, he stated that the Program Support Unit
may use the system to analyze various characteristics related to the
operation of an institution, should that information be available
through the system.
According to its project adviser, this new system will replace
the assignment and scheduling systems currently used by the
institutions. The project adviser told us that Corrections initially
scheduled the replacement function for assignment and scheduling
to be implemented by June 2009, but it has been delayed after
testing revealed the system was not complete and fully ready. The
project adviser stated that the project office is hoping to receive
the updated system in August so that users can perform testing in
early fall of 2009; however, the contractor has not met its deadlines
related to this portion of the project and is having issues developing
this aspect of the system.
If this aspect of the new system cannot be implemented, the existing
data could be improved and further information added to associate
each custody staff position with the inmates the position oversees.
With this information Corrections could better identify program
costs, thus improving the ability of Corrections’ management to
monitor and manage its operations more cost‑effectively. As shown
in Table 3 on page 31, inmate housing, security, and support costs
are the largest expense related to incarcerating inmates. Additionally,
the number of custody staff necessary to oversee a given number
of inmates depends on both the characteristics of the inmates and

Implementation of the new
automated system that will replace
the assignment and scheduling
systems has been delayed and
the contractor is having difficulty
developing this aspect of
the system.

35

36

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

the characteristics of the institution. By allocating those costs to
specific inmate populations, Corrections could then analyze what
factors—such as the security level and custody designations of the
inmates and the design of the institution—contribute to the cost of
custody staff and determine the average yearly cost to incarcerate
each inmate. If it knew the cost of custody staff associated with
the various inmate populations and institution characteristics,
Corrections could work toward operating the system as a whole in
a more cost‑effective manner. For example, Corrections could take
this factor into consideration when prioritizing facilities to close
if the inmate population declines, or when choosing facilities to
transition to different custody designations if the nature of the inmate
population changes.
Transferring Inmates to Out‑of‑State Facilities Appears to Be
Less Expensive
State laws and regulations provide Corrections with a framework
for selecting inmates that it can transfer to out‑of‑state facilities.
According to Corrections, the out‑of‑state program’s focus is to
transfer inmates classified as security level III that do not have
serious mental, medical, or dental conditions or behavioral issues.
Because Corrections does not track cost data in sufficient detail
for us to determine the cost of inmates whose characteristics are
comparable to those sent out of state, the exact impact of this
program on Corrections’ budget is unclear. Nevertheless, in fiscal
year 2007–08, Corrections costs totaled nearly $65 million to
transport and house an average daily population of 2,226 inmates
in contracted out‑of‑state facilities. This represents an average cost
of $29,100 per inmate. Using the average cost of inmates housed in
certain institutions that may hold similar populations, we calculated
that the $29,100 cost per inmate is between $3,200 and $7,800 less
than the amount spent on inmates housed in Corrections’
institutions in fiscal year 2007–08.
State Laws and Regulations Specify the Types of Inmates That May Be
Considered for Transfer Out of State
State laws and regulations provide Corrections with a framework
for selecting inmates that it can transfer to out‑of‑state facilities.
State law specifies that an inmate with serious medical or mental
health conditions, as determined by the court‑appointed receiver
(receiver), or an inmate in the mental health system at the enhanced
outpatient level of care or higher may not be committed or
transferred to an institution outside this state unless the inmate has
executed a written consent to the transfer. Additionally, although
state regulations specify that every male inmate is potentially

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

eligible to be transferred out of state, inmates with serious medical,
mental health, or dental conditions, as determined by designated
staff under the supervision of the receiver or those operating under
specified federal court orders, must volunteer for an out‑of‑state
transfer and provide written consent. Under state regulations, if
appropriate care is available for the inmate while out of state, the
inmate may be considered for transfer.
According to its screening process, Corrections transfers only
inmates who meet a certain set of eligibility criteria to out‑of‑state
facilities. The eligibility criteria consider characteristics such as
security level, custody designation, time remaining to serve, and
medical history. Although Corrections’ eligibility criteria indicate
that inmates classified as security levels I through III can be
transferred, according to the chief deputy warden for Corrections’
out‑of‑state program, the program’s focus is to transfer primarily
inmates classified as security levels III that do not have serious
mental, medical, dental, or behavioral conditions. Additionally,
inmates enrolled in the Division of Addictions and Recovery
Services’ programs are excluded from out‑of‑state transfer.
According to the chief deputy warden for the out‑of‑state program,
this exclusion is to ensure that inmates are able to participate in
substance abuse programs, which are believed to reduce recidivism.
The Cost of Housing California Inmates in Corrections’ Institutions Appears
to Be More Expensive Than Placing Them in Out‑of‑State Facilities
As shown in Table 5 on the following page, Corrections’ costs to
transfer and house an average of 2,226 inmates out of state totaled
nearly $65 million in fiscal year 2007–08. That amount includes
$7.7 million, or $3,400 per inmate, to administer the program. The
average annual cost to house an inmate out of state for that year was
$29,100. According to the chief deputy warden for the out‑of‑state
program, the program includes positions for oversight teams to
monitor operations and train Corrections Corporation of America
staff to ensure that they follow applicable laws and procedures related
to the care of California inmates. In addition to the cost of $65 million
for the out‑of‑state program in fiscal year 2007–08, the chief deputy
warden for the out‑of‑state program stated that there may be
additional expenses accounted for in separate programs. For example,
institutions may incur costs associated with staff participation in
classification committees. Therefore, the complete cost of transferring
inmates out of state is likely higher than $65 million. However,
according to the deputy director of the Office of Fiscal Services, the
out‑of‑state program was not created to reduce costs, but rather to
alleviate unsafe overcrowding caused by placing inmates in prison
areas such as gymnasiums, dayrooms, and program rooms that were
not designed for inmate housing.

The out-of-state program was not
created to reduce costs, but rather
to alleviate unsafe overcrowding
caused by placing inmates in
prison areas not designed for
inmate housing.

37

38

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Table 5
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Costs to Send and
House Inmates in Out-of-State Facilities
Fiscal Year 2007–08
Average daily population*
CATEGORY

2,226
TOTAL COST

AVERAGE COST
PER INMATE

$52,248,636

$23,472

3,775,684

1,696

Contract Costs
Housing, including programs
Transportation and medical care
Other
Subtotals

1,111,799

499

$57,136,119

$25,667

$ 6,852,328

$3,078

Program Administration Costs
Salaries and wages and benefits
Operating expense and equipment
Subtotals
Totals

763,061

343

$7,615,389

$3,421

$64,751,508

$29,088

Source:  California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (Corrections) accounting records.
*	 Average daily population calculated from contract invoices for fiscal year 2007–08.

To determine the impact of housing inmates out of state on
Corrections’ budget, it was necessary to identify a relevant cost
that Corrections would have incurred if these inmates had not
been transferred out of state and compare it to the average cost
per inmate of the out‑of‑state program. According to Corrections,
it calculates a marginal cost figure—an estimate of the cost to house
one additional inmate in a Corrections’ institution under overcrowded
circumstances—which is also known as the overcrowding rate.
However, after reviewing this figure we believe it is not appropriate
for comparison to the cost of housing inmates out of state. Because
Corrections’ institutions are full, when the population increases,
inmates are placed in nontraditional or overcrowding beds in day
rooms or gymnasiums. However, the out‑of‑state program’s focus is on
transferring inmates with higher security levels who cannot be housed
in such a situation. Specifically, Corrections informed us that the focus
of the out‑of‑state program is to transfer inmates that are designated
as security level III that do not have serious mental, medical, dental, or
behavioral conditions, and such inmates must be kept in cells. For this
reason, comparing the cost of the inmates housed out of state to the
cost of inmates housed in overcrowded day rooms, gymnasiums,
or dormitory‑style facilities would not be appropriate. Further,
because the population of inmates transferred out of state is larger
than that of many of Corrections’ institutions, housing this number of
inmates in an appropriate environment is equivalent to operating an

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

entire additional institution, rather than a portion of an institution. For
these reasons, the average cost of housing an inmate at an institution,
with its related costs, is a more relevant comparative figure.
Although Corrections does not track cost information in sufficient
detail to isolate the costs of housing inmates at different security
levels, by grouping institutions assigned the same mission, we
calculated the average cost of the general population levels III
and IV institutions. Because security levels III and IV both require
celled housing units, as opposed to the dormitories used in security
levels I and II, institutions within the general population levels III
and IV mission seem relevant for approximating the average cost
for Corrections to house an inmate in a cell.
To create a more accurate comparison of costs, we also removed those
costs that were unlikely to be incurred in each of the populations.
Specifically, because inmates housed out of state are screened to
ensure that they do not have serious medical conditions, we removed
health care costs from our comparison. We included headquarters
support and administration costs in calculating Corrections’ cost per
inmate, but because there are costs within that figure that we cannot
associate with the specific populations they are related to, using this
amount may not be precise. Therefore, Table 6 shows the cost per
inmate both with these support and administration costs and without
them. As shown in the table, the cost of housing inmates out of state
Table 6
Average Cost Per Inmate in Out‑of‑State Facilities Compared to Average Cost
Per Inmate in California’s General Population Levels III and IV Institutions
Fiscal Year 2007–08
AVERAGE COST PER INMATE
OUT‑OF‑STATE
FACILITIES

Inmate housing, security, and support

$25,667*

$27,340

$25,667

$28,909

Education, vocational, and other rehabilitation
Subtotals
Headquarters support and administration
Totals

GENERAL POPULATION
LEVELS III AND IV
INSTITUTIONS

DIFFERENCE

1,569
$3,421

$7,996

$29,088

$36,905

$3,242
$7,817

Sources:  Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation’s (Corrections) accounting records and Distributed Data Processing System (DDPS)
average daily inmate population for fiscal year 2007–08.
*	 Includes the cost for education and vocational programs.

39

40

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

The cost of housing inmates out
of state is $3,200 less per inmate
than the amount spent to house an
inmate in comparable Corrections’
institutions. That difference
increases to $7,800 if headquarters
support and administration costs
are included.

appears to be anywhere from $3,200 to $7,800 less per inmate than
the amount spent to house an inmate in comparable Corrections’
institutions. Specifically, if the headquarters support and
administration costs are excluded, inmates housed out of state cost
$3,200 less than those housed in Corrections institutions classified
as general population levels III and IV mission. Alternatively,
if headquarters support and administration costs are included,
inmates housed out of state cost $7,800 less than those housed in
a general population levels III and IV institution—which should
consist primarily of cell‑type housing units.
Although it may not be appropriate to use the marginal cost figure
for comparison to the cost of inmates currently being housed out
of state, it is a meaningful and useful figure when considering
increases or decreases in certain inmate populations, such as
inmates with lower security levels housed in dormitories or in
overcrowding situations. Regardless of the difference in costs,
according to the deputy director of the Office of Fiscal Services,
this program was not established as a cost saving measure, but was
intended to address overcrowding issues. This is consistent with
the provisions of Assembly Bill 900, the Public Safety and Offender
Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007, which immediately authorized
the involuntary transfer of certain inmates out of state.
Vacant Positions Cause Overtime, but Increases in Custody Staff
Salaries Have Increased Its Cost
In fiscal year 2007–08, overtime for custody staff—which include
correctional officers, sergeants, and lieutenants—totaled more
than $431 million, 96 percent of the $449 million Corrections
spent on overtime for adult operations. These costs have risen
significantly over the last five years. Custody staff overtime totaled
$152 million in fiscal year 2003–04 compared to $431 million in
fiscal year 2007–08, an increase of $279 million. A 26 percent
increase in custody staff salaries over the last five years added
$88 million to the cost of overtime in fiscal year 2007–08.
However, even after accounting for the salary increase, the cost
of overtime paid for custody staff more than doubled. Many of
the overtime hours are for covering vacant positions. Because
some correctional officer positions must be staffed every day and
many must be staffed around the clock, when vacant positions
exist, overtime is usually the only option to cover the position. For
example, due to additional health care required by the receiver
and as a result of staff shortages, overtime increased for medical
guarding and transportation. The Program Support Unit chief told
us that the receiver has since requested, and Corrections has added,
about 1,750 new custody staff for this purpose, with 485 positions
filled in fiscal year 2007–08 and 1,265 filled in fiscal year 2008–09.

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Higher Correctional Officer Salaries Have Increased Costs
Correctional officers received six raises during a 30‑month period,
beginning with a raise on July 1, 2004. On average, each of these
raises was about 4 percent, and as of July 2007, correctional officer
salaries were almost 26 percent higher than before July 2004.
For example, the maximum salary for a correctional officer
increased from $58,600 as of June 2004 to more than $73,700 as of
July 2007, a $15,100 increase. This growth in base pay resulted in
a corresponding increase in overtime costs, raising the maximum
overtime rate from $41 per hour in June 2004 to nearly $52 per
hour in July 2007. As shown in Figure 5, this increased the cost of
the overtime hours that custody staff worked in fiscal year 2007–08
by $88 million. However, after removing the cost of salary increases,
the costs of overtime for custody staff were still more than twice as
much in fiscal year 2007–08 as they were in fiscal year 2003–04.
Figure 5
Causes for the Increase in Custody Staff Overtime Costs Between Fiscal
Years 2003–04 and 2007–08
(Dollars in Millions)
Increased cost for
medical transportation—$17.7 (6%)
Increased cost for
miscellaneous security
issues—$39.1 (14%)

Salary increase
of 26%—$88.3 (32%)*
Increased costs for
medical guarding—
$65.7 (24%)

Increased cost to cover
vacancies and sick, vacation,
and other leaves—$68.1 (24%)
Sources:  Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation’s (Corrections) accounting records and actual salary ranges from the governor’s
salaries and wages supplements.
*	 Costs attributed to the increase in salary levels are calculated based on their impact on the
fiscal year 2007–08 cost of overtime. Through a review of actual salary ranges from the governor’s
salaries and wages supplements for fiscal years 2003–04 and 2007–08, we determined that
between fiscal years 2003–04 and 2007–08 correctional officers, sergeants, and lieutenants
received raises that in total ranged between nearly 26 percent and nearly 29 percent of their
salaries depending on the position. In calculating the increase in overtime costs due to these
raises shown in the figure above, we used the salary increases provided to correctional officers.
Because correctional officers make up the majority of the custody staff and received the smallest
raises, we felt this was a more conservative approach. As such, it is possible that the increase in
overtime costs attributable to salary increases is marginally larger than that represented in our figure.

41

42

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Vacant Positions Require Correctional Officers to Work Overtime
In the 2009–10 Governor’s Budget, Corrections reported that in
fiscal year 2007–08 it had approximately 25,000 authorized
positions for correctional officers, but more than 1,100, of
these positions remained vacant as of June 30, 2008. When we
asked Corrections about its vacant positions, the associate director
of human resources informed us that as of June 2009 vacant
correctional officer positions totaled 1,200, a vacancy rate of less
than 5 percent, which she stated does not appear unreasonable. The
associate director of human resources also told us that Corrections
has difficulty planning how many correctional officers to hire
due to the long process for recruiting and training them and the
complexity in predicting the need for additional officers because
of correctional officer attrition and institution activations and
deactivations. Further, according to an administrator at the Office
of Training and Professional Development, in 2004 the correctional
officer training academy was deactivated between March and
October due to an anticipated decline in the inmate population.
However, the administrator indicated that the population decline
did not occur, resulting in the need to reactivate the academy.
According to the chief of the Program Support Unit, the number of
vacant positions increased significantly following the deactivation
of the academy.
The unit chief stated that the inmate population increased
from fiscal years 2003–04 to 2006–07 and that, based on the
overcrowding staffing ratio used to determine how many additional
correctional officers were necessary, the number of custody
staff needed increased by at least 1,000. Nevertheless, between
fiscal years 2005–06 and 2007–08, the adult inmate population
decreased by 1 percent. During this same time period, Corrections
obtained additional capacity for housing inmates in community
correctional facilities and other institutions it does not operate.
Vacant positions can increase the
amount of overtime significantly
because vacant positions reduce the
number of staff available to cover
for leave taken by custody staff; as
of June 2009 vacant correctional
officer positions totaled 1,200.

Because some correctional officer positions must be filled around
the clock every day of the week, according to the unit chief, vacant
positions can increase the amount of overtime significantly, as
vacant positions reduce the number of staff available to cover for
leave taken by custody staff. Corrections uses a formula based
on average accruals and leave usage to budget for correctional
officers that are absent for various reasons. This formula fully
accounts for the amount of time that correctional officers are
provided each year for vacation, sick leave, training, and other
reasons. Thus, if all positions are filled, there should be a sufficient
number of correctional officers, on average, to ensure that there
is little need for overtime because of individuals absent due to
vacation, sick leave, or training. For example, in order to have
enough relief coverage available, Corrections indicated that it

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

budgets 1.24 correctional officers to staff a regular position five days
a week. Similarly, Corrections budgets 1.74 officers to staff a
position seven days a week. However, if there is a vacant position
and a correctional officer calls in sick, another correctional officer
generally must work overtime to cover the vacant relief position.
Part of the reason for the large amount of overtime may also be
related to the way in which hours worked were classified until
recently. Corrections’ implemented labor agreement allowed
leave credit to be counted as time worked when calculating the
amount of overtime an officer earns. For example, a correctional
officer could hypothetically take 40 hours of leave during his or her
regularly scheduled work period, then work an eight‑hour shift in
a previously unscheduled period and be paid for the eight hours
at the overtime rate. In February 2009 state law was added
specifying the way in which overtime is calculated, removing leave
of any kind from being considered in determining the total hours
worked and thus when overtime hours commence. This change
occurred after the period that we reviewed, fiscal years 2003–04
through 2007–08, and thus is not a part of our analysis, but the result
will be to decrease the number of hours for which correctional
officers are paid at the overtime rate. However, state law leaves
open the possibility for future memorandums of understanding to
override these provisions.
Overtime for custody staff has fluctuated significantly in the last
five years, having increased overall by $279 million during fiscal
years 2003–04 to 2007–08, to more than $431 million. This
represents the majority of the $449 million Corrections spent on
overtime costs for adult operations during fiscal year 2007–08. As
shown in Figure 6 on the following page, Corrections tracks overtime
for custody staff caused by various factors such as covering for
leave—including sick, vacation, and other—and covering
for medical guarding or medical transportation. However, as
previously discussed, because Corrections’ staffing formula accounts
for the total amounts of vacation, sick leave, and other time away
from work that a correctional officer accrues during the course of
the year, if Corrections were to fill its vacant positions, sufficient
staff should be in place to prevent the need for significant amounts
of overtime in certain categories. Therefore, even though Figure 6
shows that the largest overtime category is attributable in part to
leave coverage, much of the need to work overtime for this purpose is
due to vacant relief positions Corrections has calculated that it needs.

Until recently, the implemented
labor agreement allowed leave
credit to be counted as time worked
when calculating the amount of
overtime an officer earned, which
could have contributed to the large
amount of overtime.

43

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Figure 6
Overtime of Custody Staff by Category
Fiscal Years 2003–04 Through 2007–08
$500

Dollars in Millions

44

400

Institutional and miscellaneous
security issues

300

Vacant position coverage

200

Sick, vacation, and other
leave relief

100

Medical transportation
Medical guarding

0
2003–04

2004–05

2005–06

2006–07

2007–08

Fiscal Year
Source:  Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s
accounting records.

Medical Guarding and Transportation and Fire Crews Have Also
Contributed to Increases in Overtime Costs
According to the chief of the Program Support Unit—which
provides guidance and assistance on issues related to institution
resource needs and custody staffing—since the establishment
of the receiver in 2005, medical visits outside the institutions
have increased significantly as part of an increased effort to
improve the quality of health care provided to inmates. Taking
into account increases in custody staff salary, medical guarding
and transportation overtime increased by 449 percent from fiscal
years 2003–04 to 2007–08, or more than $111 million.6 The unit
chief also told us that, in response to the increased need for custody
staff for medical guarding and transportation, the receiver requested
1,750 additional custody staff positions dedicated to providing
access to medical care. The chief indicated that Corrections filled
485 of these positions during fiscal year 2007–08 and 1,265 during
fiscal year 2008–09.
The two institutions that manage the conservation camps
spent $8.4 million on emergency overtime in fiscal year 2005–06,
$18 million in fiscal year 2006–07, and $18.6 million in fiscal
6	

To obtain some assurance regarding the completeness of this information, we compared the
total amount of expenditures in the records we received for fiscal years 2007–08 and 2006–07 to
paper records. However, we did not perform this procedure for earlier fiscal years in our analysis
because we were unable to obtain the relevant information for fiscal years prior to 2006–07.

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

year 2007–08. According to the chief of the Program Support Unit,
these two institutions, Sierra Conservation Center and California
Correctional Center, often experience a spike in custody staff
overtime for guarding inmates during firefighting operations in
summer months. However, the California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection reimburses Corrections for payroll—including
custodial coverage and transportation—and other costs to prepare
inmates for fire assignments. At these institutions inmates are
trained in firefighting techniques and are placed in conservation
camps that are jointly managed with fire departments. While
under the supervision of Corrections’ custody staff, these inmates
are dispatched to fight wildland fires, respond to emergencies, or
provide labor on community service projects. Both institutions
had high seasonal costs for overtime in the emergency overtime
category during fiscal years 2005–06 through 2007–08, with a total
of 86 percent of the annual emergency overtime worked during the
July to December period.
Because of Enhanced Benefits, Filling Current Vacancies Will Not
Reduce Custody Staff Costs
In reviewing the amount of overtime worked by correctional
officers, we determined that over 4,700 correctional officers were
each paid for more than 80 hours of overtime in at least one month
during fiscal year 2007–08, and that over 8,400 correctional officers
were paid more in gross pay than the top pay rate for a correctional
lieutenant—the level two ranks above a correctional officer.
However, we also determined that due to the costs of benefits and
training, hiring new correctional officers to reduce overtime would
actually increase Corrections’ total costs.
Increases in pension contributions have significantly raised the
cost of hiring a new employee. Retirement benefits for correctional
officers are more expensive in part because correctional officers
are eligible to receive a benefit factor—the percentage of pay an
employee is entitled to for each year of service—of 3 percent at
age 50, as opposed to the benefit factor of 2.5 percent at 63 years
of age received by many other state employees. In fact, we project
that under current conditions the cost of providing new correctional
officers with these enhanced retirement benefits increases to
$74 million a year in seven years and reaches nearly $113 million a
year in 10 years. We estimate that the additional cost of enhanced
benefits contributes more than $2 to the cost of each hour of work for
a new employee. Without the enhanced benefits, a new employee’s
hour of work would cost less than an hour of overtime worked by the
highest‑paid correctional officers, and reducing overtime by hiring
additional correctional officers would be cost‑effective.

Over 4,700 correctional officers
were each paid for 80 hours or more
of overtime in at least one month
during fiscal year 2007–08, and over
8,400 correctional officers were
paid more in total pay than the top
pay rate for a position two ranks
above their level.

45

46

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Many Correctional Officers Work Significant Amounts of Overtime
A state law effective August 2003 requires Corrections to establish
a standardized overtime limit for correctional officers, not to
exceed 80 hours each month. However the law also indicates that
the State is not relieved of any obligation under a memorandum of
understanding relating to hours of work, overtime, or alternative
work schedules. According to the current implemented labor
agreement for correctional officers dated September 2007,
correctional officers shall not be able to accept an overtime
assignment when they have worked 10 overtime shifts, or 80 hours,
per 28‑day work period. The implemented labor agreement also
indicates that voluntary overtime is assigned by seniority. When
all of the employees signed up for a voluntary overtime shift meet
or exceed the 80‑hour overtime limit for the period, the voluntary
overtime list will be used based on seniority. According to a
February 2008 memorandum issued by the director of the Division
of Adult Institutions, each institution is responsible for tracking and
immediately reporting all instances in which the 80‑hour overtime
limit is exceeded. The memorandum states that the institution
is responsible for limiting the instances in which the 80‑hour
overtime limit has been or will be exceeded to operational needs or
emergencies. We reviewed the number of correctional officers that
worked more than this limit during the last five fiscal years. During
our analysis we discovered that identifying the number of hours a
correctional officer works in a month is problematic, and we also
found errors in the overtime data.
According to Corrections’ associate director of accounting services,
correctional officers are paid for the amount of overtime they
have worked during a 28‑day work period. However, the State
Controller’s Office payroll data track the amount an employee is
paid during a pay period. Although correctional officers are paid
monthly, overtime amounts in the state controller’s data represent
a 28‑day period—with the exception of one month which contains
payments for two 28‑day periods. Thus, determining precisely how
many hours of overtime a correctional officer worked during each
calendar month is not possible using the State Controller’s Office
payroll data. In addition, we found that personnel specialists at
some institutions improperly keyed retroactive overtime salary
adjustments as new overtime payments.
Although we have no reason to believe they were not paid the
proper amounts, by coding the adjustments improperly,
Corrections’ payroll data misrepresented the nature of the overtime
worked, inadvertently inflating the number of overtime hours that
it indicated correctional officers had worked, and deflating the
average hourly amount it indicated that they received for working
those hours. After removing these adjustments, we identified

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

4,736 correctional officers who were paid for 80 hours or more of
overtime in at least one month during fiscal year 2007–08, as
shown in Table 7. During the past three fiscal years, 4,700 to
5,400 correctional officers were paid for 80 hours or more of
overtime in a month. The number of times this occurred ranged
from about 14,000 to more than 17,000.
Table 7
Number of Correctional Officers Who Were Paid for More Than 80 Hours of
Overtime in a Month
Fiscal Years 2003–04 Through 2007–08
FISCAL YEAR
2003–04

2004–05

2005–06

2006–07

2007–08

Number of correctional officers who were paid
for 80 hours or more of overtime during at least
one month

1,598

2,650

4,937

5,448

4,736

Number of times that correctional officers were
paid for more than 80 hours of overtime in
a month

4,061

7,153

14,817

17,325

13,954

Source:  Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of State Controller’s Office payroll data.

Correctional officers receive a variety of pay
differentials and incentives in addition to overtime,
as listed in the text box. Table 8 on the following
page indicates that over 8,400 correctional officers
earned more in total pay than the top pay rate for a
correctional lieutenant—the level two ranks above
a correctional officer. Of these 8,400 correctional
officers, almost 4,500 earned more than the top pay
rate for correctional captains—nearly $109,000—
which are three ranks higher than correctional
officers. This is $35,000 more than the base pay
of a correctional officer at the highest pay rate. To
earn this amount solely through working overtime
hours, a correctional officer at the highest pay rate
would need to work an additional 675 hours. Finally,
more than 1,600 correctional officers earned more
than the $129,100 paid to wardens.
The tendency for individuals to earn more than the
base salary of positions several steps above them was
not limited to correctional officers. Five Lieutenants

Correctional Officer Pay Differentials and
Incentives Available in Fiscal Year 2007–08
•	 Seniority pay of up to 8 percent of base salary.
•	 Weekend pay differential of 90 cents per hour.
•	 Physical fitness incentive of up to $130 per pay period.
•	 Housing stipend of $500 per month at some institutions.
•	 Bilingual/sign language pay of $100 per month for
state‑certified bilingual/sign language speakers.
•	 Educational pay of $135 per pay period for employees
with an associate degree or higher, or a minimum of
60 semester units from an accredited institution.
•	 Recruitment incentive of $175 per month at
some institutions.
•	 Retention bonus of $2,400 a year at some institutions.
Sources:  Implemented labor agreement dated September 2007;
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Web site.

47

48

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Table 8
Custody Staff Earning More Total Pay Than the Top Pay Rate of Their
Superiors’ Salary Range
Fiscal Year 2007–08
POSITION

NUMBER OF
INDIVIDUALS PAID

Agency secretary*
Warden
Captain
Lieutenant
Sergeant
Correctional officer

TOP STEP OF
SALARY RANGE

CORRECTIONAL
OFFICERS

SERGEANTS

LIEUTENANTS

$225,000

0

2

5

129,108

1,637

372

310
650

370

108,984

4,491

1,024

1,350

93,144

8,477

1,886

3,269

82,704

12,615

27,818

73,728

Source:  Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of State Controller’s Office payroll data.
Note:  These amounts are for payments related to fiscal year 2007–08 pay periods regardless of
issue date.
*	 The agency secretary is the chief executive and administrator of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation.

were paid more than the $225,000 salary of Corrections’
secretary, meaning that they earned over $130,000 in additional
pay, considerably more than the highest salary of the lieutenant
position. Furthermore, the seven employees who were paid more
than Corrections’ secretary earned nearly $1 million in overtime
pay during fiscal year 2007–08. Employees working such a high
number of overtime hours causes concern regarding the safety of
the officers, supervisors, and inmates.
Hiring New Correctional Officers Is Slightly More Expensive Than Using
the Highest‑Paid Officers to Work Overtime
Although custody staff overtime costs represented $431 million of
Corrections’ expenditures in fiscal year 2007–08, due to the costs
of benefits and training, hiring new correctional officers to reduce
overtime would actually have increased Corrections’ total costs.
The hourly cost of paying a new correctional officer, including the
cost to recruit, train, and provide equipment, is about $1 more
than the hourly overtime cost of the highest‑paid correctional
officer. Table 9 shows our comparison of the estimated cost of a
new employee working for a single hour during his or her first year
compared to the cost of one hour for a correctional officer at the
level with the most opportunity to work overtime. To compare
the cost of one hour of overtime, we used the overtime pay rate
for the highest‑paid correctional officer because, based on its
2007 implemented labor agreement, Corrections provides the
option of working voluntary overtime based on seniority. However,
because correctional officers at lower pay rates sometimes work

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

overtime when more senior officers choose not to, or when they are
directed to, the hourly cost of overtime may be less, resulting in a
greater cost differential.
The table depicts the estimated cost associated with a new correctional
officer who had graduated from the training academy but had not yet
completed the apprenticeship program during fiscal year 2007–08.
According to a manager in the Office of Training and Professional
Development, full‑time correctional officers can complete the
apprenticeship program in 18 to 22 months; therefore, the costs in
the table reflect the salary of a new correctional officer during this
period. During fiscal year 2007–08, new correctional officers were
paid an average of $50,739, not including overtime. Because they are
typically fulfilling the requirements of the apprenticeship program
in this initial period, we allocated the recruiting and training
costs—which Corrections incurs before new correctional officers
begin work at an institution—across the first two years that they
work at an institution. We did not factor in workers’ compensation
insurance, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, or other
overhead costs that could not be easily attributed to new officers.
Including the average salary; benefits; and allocations of recruiting,
training, and equipment, we estimate the total cost for a new
correctional officer in the first year of employment at an institution to
be nearly $89,000.
Table 9
Estimated Hourly Cost of a New Correctional Officer During the First Year of
Work at an Institution, Compared to the Hourly Cost of Overtime
COST TYPE

Average salary, incentives, and differentials
Average retirement and Medicare
Average state share of insurance premiums, such as medical,
dental, and vision
Recruiting, training, and equipment*
Total
First year cost divided by 1,670 working hours
Hourly rate of overtime for the highest‑paid correctional officers
Additional Hourly Cost of a New Employee

AMOUNT

$50,739
12,908
6,718
18,435
$88,800
$53
52
$1

Sources:  Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of State Controller’s Office data, California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (Corrections) accounting records, estimated costs for correctional
officer training provided by Corrections’ associate director of human resources, contract for
equipment provided by Corrections, Corrections’ Post Assignment Schedule Master Assignment
Roster user guide, and Department of Personnel Administration pay information.
Note:  Costs represent average amounts during fiscal year 2007–08 for all correctional officers in the
pay range they are placed in after graduating from the training academy.
*	 Total recruiting and training costs allocated across a two‑year period and equipment cost
allocated across a five‑year useful life.

49

50

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

We determined the hourly rate of a new correctional officer based on
the number of hours a correctional officer is budgeted to work in a
year. For example, Corrections budgets 1.24 correctional officers for a
standard guard assignment consisting of eight hours per day/five days
per week/52 weeks per year. Because of sick leave, vacation, holidays,
and training, an officer is not budgeted to work all of the 2,080
working hours in a year. Although leave and training hours reduce
the number of hours an employee is available to work, the State must
still pay the employee for these hours. Because there are various
shift assignments that require five‑day or seven‑day schedules, the
budgeted hours vary. For the purposes of our calculation, we used
1,670 actual work hours per officer. For each new officer hired, this is
the amount of overtime that Corrections could expect to eliminate.
The resulting estimated cost of eliminating an hour of overtime with
an hour of work by a new correctional officer is $53.
Although many costs must be considered when hiring an additional
correctional officer, an hour of overtime generally costs 1.5 times
the correctional officer’s hourly pay rate. Because an officer working
overtime has already provided his regular number of hours of
service and overtime is generally a voluntary activity, the various
expenses that increase the cost of a new employee’s time have
already been accounted for. For example, the State’s contribution
for retirement benefits are based on a correctional officer’s base pay
rate for working full‑time during normal working hours, and do
not increase with overtime pay. At the highest pay rate, correctional
officers receive almost $35 per hour for regular hours worked, thus,
the cost of overtime is generally no higher than $52 per hour.
Retirement Contributions Are a Significant Aspect of the Cost of Hiring a
New Correctional Officer

The higher cost is due in part to the
fact that correctional officers are
eligible to receive the maximum
percentage of pay they are entitled
to receive for each year of service at
age 50 as opposed to the 63 years
of age required for many other
state employees.

In recent years the State’s contributions for pensions have risen
drastically, increasing the cost of hiring a new employee. Additionally,
as discussed earlier, correctional officers received several pay increases
in fiscal years 2003–04 through 2007–08. Since these raises apply to
all officers, they do not affect the difference in costs when comparing
the cost of a new correctional officer with the cost of paying overtime
to existing employees. However, between fiscal years 2002–03 and
2007–08 the State’s pension contribution rate rose by 83 percent,
increasing the cost of new correctional officers. The State must
contribute at a higher rate to pay correctional officers higher pension
benefits, and these higher costs are a significant contributor to the
increased cost of an hour of work by a new employee.
In fiscal year 2002–03, the State’s contribution to a correctional
officer’s pension was 13.9 percent of compensation. In 2006 the
retirement formula changed from 3 percent at age 55 to 3 percent at
age 50 and the State’s contribution rate was nearly 26 percent in 2007–08.

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

In part because the State must contribute more money in a shorter
period of time to ensure that it is able to pay these enhanced pension
benefits, the contribution rate for correctional officers is higher than
the contribution rate for other employees’ retirement benefits. This
higher cost is due in part to the fact that correctional officers are
eligible to receive a benefit factor of 3 percent at age 50 as opposed
to the benefit factor of 2.5 percent at 63 years of age that many other
state employees are eligible to receive.
Correctional officers are eligible to receive 3 percent of final
compensation—their highest average full‑time monthly pay rate
and special compensation for 12 consecutive months—for each
year of service completed once they reach age 50. In contrast, many
state workers are eligible to receive 2 percent of final compensation
for each year of service once they reach age 55. Thus, a correctional
officer whose highest level of compensation was $74,000, who
has 30 years of service, and who retires at age 55 would receive
an annual pension of $66,600, or 50 percent more than the
$44,400 that many state workers earning the same salary with the
same number of years of service would receive at the same age. As
shown in Figure 7, the comparison is even more dramatic at age 50,
when correctional officers are first eligible for full retirement.
Figure 7
Retirement Pay Comparison
ANNUAL BENEFIT ACCRUED PRIOR
TO RETIREMENT ELIGIBILITY

ANNUAL BENEFIT PAY LEVEL

Correctional officers

Correctional officers

State safety workers

State safety workers

Many state workers

Many state workers

$80,000
70,000

Annual Retirement Pay

60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000

Age
Years of Service

0 — 22
1 — 23
2 — 24
3 — 25
4 — 26
5 — 27
6 — 28
7 — 29
8 — 30
9 — 31
10 — 32
11 — 33
12 — 34
13 — 35
14 — 36
15 — 37
16 — 38
17 — 39
18 — 40
19 — 41
20 — 42
21 — 43
22 — 44
23 — 45
24 — 46
25 — 47
26 — 48
27 — 49
28 — 50
29 — 51
30 — 52
31 — 53
32 — 54
33 — 55
34 — 56
35 — 57
36 — 58
37 — 59
38 — 60
39 — 61
40 — 62
41 — 63
42 — 64
43 — 65

0

Sources:  Bureau of State Audits’ calculation of retirement benefits based on California Public Employees’ Retirement System member benefit booklets,
Department of Personnel Administration’s pay scales, and Government Code related to retirement membership categories.
Note:  Retirement pay calculation for all groups compared based on a final compensation level equal to the maximum correctional officer base salary.

51

52

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Because many state workers receive only 1.1 percent of their final
compensation for each year of service if they retire at this age, they
would receive about one‑third of the pension of a correctional
officer retiring with the same pay and years of service. Although
many state workers can receive a greater percentage of their highest
pay in benefits, as shown in Figure 7, to receive the same level of
pension benefits as a correctional officer, these individuals must
work almost nine additional years, or 30 percent longer. In addition,
state safety employees, which include employees in many other
positions within correctional facilities, such as cooks, plumbers,
and vocational instructors, can receive 1.7 percent of their final
compensation for each year of service once they reach age 50, with
a maximum of 2.5 percent of final compensation per year of service
at age 55. These benefits required an employer contribution of
18.8 percent of compensation in fiscal year 2007–08.
Pension Benefits Provided to New Correctional Officers Represent a
Significant Cost
The enhanced retirement benefits currently available to
correctional officers are significantly more expensive than those
for many other state workers. For fiscal year 2009–10 the State’s
contribution cost for many state workers earning the same salary
as a new correctional officer is about $8,000; however, the State
needs to contribute $12,000 for the pension benefit of each
new correctional officer, an additional $4,000 per officer per
year. As correctional officers’ pay increases, the cost difference
for contributions also increases. For a correctional officer at
the top of the salary scale in fiscal year 2009–10, the State will
contribute $19,000 for pension benefits, or about $6,600 more
than contributions for many state workers earning the same salary.
According to our estimate, the State’s pension contribution cost
for providing enhanced retirement benefits to new correctional
officers based on the fiscal year 2009–10 contribution rate increases
significantly over time. Specifically, the cost for providing enhanced
retirement benefits to new correctional officers is $6 million in the
first year and increases rapidly as additional correctional officers are
hired and receive increases in pay. As shown in Figure 8, we project
that under current conditions the annual cost of providing newly hired
correctional officers with enhanced retirement benefits increases to
$74 million in seven years and reaches $113 million in 10 years. This
estimate reflects the additional amount the State must contribute over
and above the amount it provides for many state employees and is
based on an estimated 2,000 correctional officers hired each year to
replace existing correctional officers as they retire or are promoted.
It also accounts for the additional cost as new correctional officers
move to a higher pay step and receive salary increases.

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Figure 8
Annual Cost Difference of Providing New Correctional Officers With
Enhanced Retirement Benefits
$160
140

Dollars in Millions

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Year
Sources:  Bureau of State Audits’ estimated cost based on the California Public Employees’
Retirement System Circular Letter regarding the fiscal year 2009–10 state employer rates
of contribution, Department of Personnel Administration’s pay scales, Governor’s Budget
for 2009–10, and new correctional officer appointment data provided by the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Office of Workforce Planning and Selection.

This projection depends on several variables that may change. For
example, depending on economic conditions, the amount that
the State must contribute to ensure that employees receive their
pension benefits may increase or decrease. In addition, if the rate
of turnover we used in our calculations proves to be significantly
lower, the peak level of costs we project would take longer to reach.
Because Corrections stated that it was unable to provide us with
complete information on turnover, we calculated our own estimate
and found that 8 percent of correctional officers are replaced with
new staff each year. We arrived at this figure by first identifying the
number of filled correctional officer positions through a comparison
of the number of authorized and vacant positions in the governor’s
budget. Next, using the number of correctional officers Corrections
informed us that it had appointed, we calculated the difference
between the number of appointments and the change in filled
positions from the prior year to arrive at the number of correctional
officers who left their positions.
According to our estimate, the cost for the State to provide newly
hired correctional officers with enhanced retirement benefits will total
more than $1 billion over the next 14 years. In addition, we estimate
that this additional cost results in a significant difference between
the cost of hiring a new employee and that of paying overtime to

53

54

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

existing employees. Indeed, we estimate that the cost of enhanced
benefits contributes more than $2 an hour to the cost of each hour
of work for a new employee. Without the cost of enhanced benefits,
a new employee’s hour of work would cost less than an hour of
overtime worked by the highest‑paid correctional officers, and
reducing overtime by hiring additional correctional officers would be
cost‑effective.
The Three Strikes Law Requires Longer Prison Sentences
Inmates sentenced under the three strikes law (striker inmates) are
more costly than other inmates, for several reasons. Not only do
these inmates serve prison sentences that are on average nine years
longer than if they had not been sentenced under the three strikes
law, but the most frequent age group for striker inmates is more
than 10 years older than the most frequent age group for inmates
not serving a striker sentence. According to a variety of research,
older inmates require additional health care, which leads to higher
health care costs. As described in the Introduction, the three strikes
law is intended to ensure longer prison sentences and greater
punishment for those who commit a felony and were previously
convicted of a serious or violent felony. State law specifies which
felonies are considered serious, violent, or both. These felonies are
listed in Appendix B. For example, murder is considered both a
serious and a violent felony.

As of April 2009 25 percent of the
total inmate population were
incarcerated under the three
strikes law.

As described in Figure 9, when an offender is convicted of
any felony and has one or more prior serious or violent felony
convictions, the three strikes law is applied to determine the prison
term related to the current conviction. The felony for which the
offender is currently convicted need not be serious or violent.
As of April 2009 Corrections housed more than 43,500 inmates
incarcerated under the three strikes law. This represents 25 percent
of the total inmate population of 171,500 at that point in time.
Corrections’ average cost per inmate for inmates housed in
the 33 institutions for fiscal year 2007–08 was $49,300, as we
discussed previously.
To determine the additional cost of striker inmates, we identified
the sentence for the controlling offense—if it was related to a
three strikes case—or the longest sentence related to a three strikes
case, for striker inmates currently housed in Corrections’ adult
institutions, and compared the estimated lengths of these sentences
to an estimate of the prison terms they might have received had
they not been sentenced under the three strikes law. To estimate
the term an inmate would have received in the absence of the
three strikes law, we identified the mid‑term of the possible prison
terms prescribed by state law for the crime for which the striker

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

inmate was incarcerated. If there was no mid‑term, we used the
maximum prison term specified in state law. We then added any
applicable enhancements—additional prison terms prescribed by
state law under certain circumstances. Finally, we excluded those
inmates whose sentence was not likely increased by the three strikes
law. For example, an inmate currently convicted of petty theft who
had two prior convictions for serious or violent crimes receives a
minimum sentence of 25 years to life under the three strikes law.
Had he been sentenced to the mid‑term of the normally applicable
sentence, he would have received two years. In this case, we
estimated that the inmate will be in prison for 23 years longer under
the three strikes law. Additionally, as previously discussed, striker
inmates convicted of multiple current offenses generally must serve
consecutive sentences rather than concurrent sentences.
Figure 9
General Application of the Three Strikes Law
Offender Convicted of ANY Felony

Number of offender’s prior
violent or serious felony convictions*
NONE

Sentence is term required for
current felony conviction per
applicable law.

Three times the term selected
by the court for each current
felony conviction.

ONE

Sentence is two times the
term required for current
felony conviction.

25 years

TWO or MORE

Sentence is life imprisonment
with the minimum term being
the greater of the following:

Term selected by the court
under California Penal Code,
Section 1170, plus enhancements;
or sections 190 or 3046.

Source:  California Penal Code, sections 667 (b)–(i) and 1170.12.
*	 Per California Penal Code, sections 667 (f)(2) and 1170.12 (d)(2), upon recommendation by
the district attorney, the court may dismiss or strike a defendant’s prior felony conviction
allegation(s). Moreover, per People v. Superior Court (Romero), a judge may also dismiss a prior
felony conviction.

Through this comparison we were able to determine that striker
inmates’ prison terms are on average nine years longer than if
they had not been sentenced under the three strikes law. Over
the life of the current population of striker inmates’ prison terms,
this amounts to 389,000 additional years of incarceration. Using

55

56

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

the $49,300 average cost per inmate for fiscal year 2007–08,
we calculated that these additional years result in a total cost of
$19.2 billion. In a subsequent report, we plan to further analyze
how many currently incarcerated striker inmates were convicted
of a nonserious and nonviolent felony, committed one or more of
their strikes as a juvenile, or committed multiple strikes during
one criminal offense.
Our analysis does not take into account certain factors that could
affect this additional cost calculation. For instance, as previously
mentioned, the law limits the amount of credits that striker
inmates can earn against their prison sentences to 20 percent
for participating in work, training, or education programs,
while other inmates can reduce their prison sentences by up to
50 percent. However, we did not take this factor into consideration
because poor behavior can reduce inmates’ credits and alter
their credit‑earning status. Additionally, to provide a more
realistic estimate, we considered inmates’ ages when calculating
the estimated additional years of incarceration the inmates would
actually serve if they reached the full life expectancy for Americans,
estimated at 77.7 years by the Centers for Disease Control.7 Finally,
according to Corrections, on average 54 percent of all paroled felons
released from prison for the first time in 2005 returned to prison
within two years of being released. This statistic—known as the
recidivism rate—would affect the results but was not considered in
our analysis because it too is dependent upon inmate behavior.
The most frequent age group for
striker inmates is more than 10 years
older than the most frequent age
group for inmates not serving a
striker sentence—older inmates
require additional health care.

Another impact of the three strikes law is the aging of the prison
population. As shown in Figure 10, the most frequent age group for
striker inmates is more than 10 years older than the most frequent
age group for inmates not serving a striker sentence. Although
52 percent of striker inmates are age 40 or older, only 35 percent
of inmates not sentenced under the three strikes law are over
age 40. According to a variety of research, older inmates require
additional health care, making them more expensive to house and
care for. An aging striker inmate population will likely increase
Corrections’ health care expenditures. As shown in Table 1 in
the Introduction, health care costs accounted for 22 percent of
Corrections’ adult operations expenditures in fiscal year 2007–08.
Using additional data we have obtained, we plan to analyze
Corrections’ fiscal year 2007–08 data on specialty health care
expenditures to compare the average amount spent on specialty
health care for striker inmates and non‑striker inmates. We plan to
present the results of this analysis in a subsequent report.

7	

On August 19, 2009, subsequent to our analysis, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
reported that the U.S. life expectancy has risen to 77.9 years of age.

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Figure 10
Striker Inmates and Non-Striker Inmates as a Percentage of Their Respective
Populations by Age Category

Percentage of Population

20%

Striker inmates
Non-striker inmates

15
10
5
0
Younger 18–19
than 18

20–24

25–29

30–34

35–39

40–44

45–49

50–54

Age Category
Source:  Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of data obtained from the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Offender Based Information System.

Recommendations
To help it assess the effect of policy changes and manage operations
in a cost‑effective manner, Corrections should do the following:
•	 Ensure that its new data system will address its current lack of
data available for statewide analysis, specifically data related to
identifying the custody staffing cost by inmate characteristics
such as security level, age, and custody designation.
•	 If implementation of its new system continues to be delayed, or
if Corrections determines that the new system will not effectively
replace the current assignment and scheduling systems used
by the institutions, it should improve its existing data related to
custody staffing levels and use the data to identify the related
costs of various inmate populations.
To ensure that overtime hours are accurately reported, Corrections
should provide training to its personnel specialists to ensure that
they properly classify retroactive overtime salary adjustments
according to the Payroll Procedures Manual.
To ensure that the State is maximizing the use of funds spent on
incarcerating inmates, Corrections should communicate to the
Department of Personnel Administration—which is responsible for
negotiating labor agreements with employee bargaining units—the
cost of allowing any type of leave to be counted as time worked
for the purpose of computing overtime compensation. It should

55–59

60 and
older

57

58

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

also encourage the Department of Personnel Administration to
not agree to provisions in bargaining unit agreements that permit
any type of leave to be counted as time worked for the purpose of
computing overtime compensation.
To more closely align its operations with state law and its own
policy, make certain that inmates are provided with an adequate
level of supervision, and protect the health and safety of employees
and inmates, Corrections should encourage the Department of
Personnel Administration to negotiate a reduction in the amount
of voluntary overtime a correctional officer is allowed to work in
future collective bargaining unit agreements, in order to reduce the
likelihood that involuntary overtime will cause them to work more
than 80 hours of overtime in total during a month. In addition,
Corrections should better ensure that it prevents the instances in
which correctional officers work beyond the voluntary overtime
limit in a pay period.

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Chapter 2
WITHOUT A CURRENT STAFFING PLAN BASED ON INMATE
NEEDS OR ADEQUATE DATA, CORRECTIONS CANNOT
EFFECTIVELY ALLOCATE RESOURCES OR ENSURE THAT IT
IS MEETING INMATE EDUCATION NEEDS
Chapter Summary
When we attempted to review its system for determining the number
of teachers, instructors, and custody staff necessary for inmates
to participate in education, vocational, and other rehabilitation
programs, we were informed that the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (Corrections) does not have a staffing
plan based on the education and vocational needs of the inmates
it houses. Currently, staffing plans are the result of budget change
proposals, mission changes, and overstaffing packages applied to the
initial staffing plans put in place when the institutions opened—which,
for two‑thirds of the institutions, occurred before 1990. In addition,
Corrections is unable to fill the vacant teacher and instructor positions
for which it is authorized due to a variety of factors, including a lack
of classroom space, a lack of custody staff to expand to double shifts,
and the current budget crisis. Further, Corrections’ staff informed
us that they do not maintain historical waiting list and program
assignment data by inmate. Once inmates leave the institution,
because they are paroled or transferred to another institution, for
example, their program participation information is not retained.
Thus, Corrections could not provide us with information regarding the
length of time inmates were on a waiting list for a program, whether
inmates were paroled before being assigned to a program for which
they were waiting, or whether inmates were denied access to programs.
For Corrections to track sufficient information to determine whether
these programs succeed in meeting the purpose for which they exist,
reducing the likelihood that inmates will reoffend after leaving
prison, seems reasonable. However, in a request for funding and
positions for a new automated system, Corrections acknowledged
that it is unable to adequately track the overall success of its
education programs or to quantify the number of inmates who
complete programs, their improvements in reading scores, or
the relationship between recidivism rates and enrollment in
education and vocational programs.
This failure to track basic data also prevents Corrections from
determining whether it is in compliance with laws requiring it to
make literacy programs available to at least 60 percent of the eligible
inmates in the state prison system. To address these shortcomings,
Corrections indicated that it is in the process of creating a new data
system that should be available by 2011.

59

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Funding for Education and Vocational Programs Lags Behind
Substance Abuse Program Funding
Corrections states that part of its purpose includes implementing
rehabilitative strategies to successfully reintegrate offenders into the
community. To accomplish this, Corrections administers education,
vocational, and other rehabilitation programs—a list of some of
these programs is provided in Appendix C—that seek to promote
or increase rehabilitation and decrease recidivism. As Figure 11
shows, Corrections’ budget for fiscal year 2008–09 includes more
than $208 million for academic and vocational programs, an increase
of $22 million over the $186 million spent on these programs in
fiscal year 2007–08. During the last three years, Corrections’ budget
for substance abuse programs has increased far more dramatically.
According to the deputy director of the Division of Addiction
and Recovery Services, Corrections received additional funding
to increase substance abuse treatment services as a result of the
Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007 (act).
The purpose of this act, in part, was to expand substance abuse
treatment services.
Figure 11
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Education, Vocational, and Other Rehabilitation
Budget Trends
$700
600
500
Dollars in Millions

60

Substance abuse program

400
Education, vocational, and
offender program administration

300

Inmate activities and library

200

Vocational education—adult

100

Academic education—adult

0
2002–03*

2003–04*

2004–05*

2005–06*

2006–07* 2007–08*

2008–09† 2009–10‡

Fiscal Year
Sources:  California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (Corrections) accounting records, the governor’s budgets for fiscal years 2004–05
through 2009–10, and expenditure figures asserted by Corrections’ accounting staff for substance abuse program expenditures during fiscal
years 2002–03 to 2006–07.
*	 Corrections’ accounting reports and actual expenditure amounts from the governor’s budgets for fiscal years 2004–05 through 2007–08.
†	 Fiscal year 2009–10 Governor’s Budget estimated expenditure amounts.
‡	 Fiscal year 2009–10 Governor’s Budget budgeted amounts.

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Although Corrections Budgeted More Than $200 Million for Academic
and Vocational Inmate Programs in Fiscal Year 2008–09, It Lacks a
Staffing Plan Based on Inmate Needs
In reviewing the adequacy of staffing for Corrections’ education
and vocational programs, we found that it does not have a
current staffing plan based on inmate needs. According to the
acting superintendent of the Office of Correctional Education
(acting superintendent), the basis of the number of instructors and
teachers is the staffing packages developed when the institutions
were first opened. Institutions can update plans only through
items such as budget change proposals, mission changes, and
overcrowding augmentations. The acting superintendent indicated
that even if Corrections had a staffing plan based on inmate
needs, it would be unable to fill teacher and instructor vacancies
due to factors such as a lack of classroom space and the current
budget crisis.
During our review of Corrections’ efforts to administer
education, vocational, and other rehabilitation programs, we
asked Corrections about its process for determining the number
of teachers and instructors needed for inmates to participate in
education, vocational, and other rehabilitation programs. According
to the deputy director for Corrections’ Division of Addiction and
Recovery Services, Corrections contracts with providers who
deliver services for its rehabilitation programs related to substance
abuse. She also told us that at least one Corrections’ employee at
each institution coordinates these programs. Because Corrections’
staff do not provide the substance abuse programs, we focused our
review on the education and vocational programs.
For the 2009–10 Governor’s Budget, Corrections estimated more
than $208 million in expenditures for academic and vocational
programs for fiscal year 2008–09. However, according to the
acting superintendent, Corrections does not have a staffing plan
for allocating teachers and instructors to institutions based on
inmate needs. Instead, she indicated that teacher and instructor
positions are initially allocated in the institution’s activation
package when the institution is first opened. About two‑thirds of
Corrections’ 33 adult institutions opened before 1990. The acting
superintendent told us that institutions can augment their staffing
plans through a budget change proposal, when an institution
changes missions, or because of overcrowding. Depending on
institutional needs and the type of overcrowding, the wardens
determine the types of positions to add. For example, she stated
that if overcrowding occurs with inmates that need additional
supervision, the warden may decide to add custody staff, but if the
overcrowding involves general population inmates, the warden may

The acting superintendent indicated
that Corrections would be unable to
fill teacher and instructor vacancies
due to various factors even if
they had a staffing plan based on
inmate needs.

61

62

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

add teachers. However, she noted that any positions gained due to
overcrowding are subsequently lost when the population decreases
and deactivation occurs.
When we asked Corrections why it has not developed a staffing
plan based on inmate needs, the acting chief deputy secretary
of adult programs (acting chief deputy secretary) stated that
Corrections recognizes that the current staffing packages for
rehabilitative programs are not based on inmate needs. She also
stated that the need for change has become apparent as Corrections
has begun to deactivate gymnasiums and other nontraditional
beds and has lost teachers and other program staff due to these
reductions. Further, the acting chief deputy secretary stated that
Corrections has been discussing some alternatives for teacher
and instructor staffing and is considering a plan based on inmate
needs and available space. Corrections was planning to develop a
budget change proposal to address this issue, but its efforts have
been delayed due to the need to identify at least $250 million
in reductions to education, vocational, and other rehabilitation
programs. The acting chief deputy secretary stated that after
determining the most effective and efficient way to implement these
reductions, Corrections plans to continue pursing a comprehensive
budget proposal to link long‑term staffing packages to inmate
need, evidence‑based principles, and available space. However,
because Corrections does not sufficiently track inmate data, any
such staffing plan must be composed without data indicating what
resources are necessary to ensure that inmate needs are met. As
we discuss later, the acting superintendent also stated that other
challenges to staffing exist at the current level.
Of the authorized academic teacher
and vocational instructor positions
we identified, 16 percent were
vacant during fiscal year 2007–08.

Although the number of authorized teacher and instructor
positions is not based on current inmate needs, based on data
from the 2008–09 and 2009–10 governor’s budgets, of the
1,400 authorized academic teacher and vocational instructor
positions that we identified, 16 percent were vacant during fiscal
year 2007–08. The acting superintendent explained that the
vacancies were due in part to a lack of classroom space, a lack
of custody staffing to expand to double shifts, and the current
budget crisis. Additionally, according to the acting chief deputy
secretary, during the same period Corrections was in the process
of shortening its school year to align it with that of the public
school system to attract more teachers and instructors. This change
also increased the salaries paid to teachers and instructors. As
part of funding this increase in salaries during fiscal year 2007–08,
Corrections froze 121 vacant teacher and instructor positions
during this period and used the salary savings to pay for the salary
increase of its filled teacher and instructor positions. Corrections
subsequently received funding to pay for the increased salary in
the 2008–09 Governor’s Budget. Despite these circumstances,

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

without a staffing plan that allocates teachers and instructors based
on inmate needs, Corrections cannot ensure that it is allocating
resources in the most cost‑effective manner and providing inmates
access to the programs needed.
Corrections Does Not Currently Track Individual Inmate Participation
in Education Programs and Therefore Cannot Assess Program
Effectiveness or Compliance With State Law
Although Corrections collects aggregate data on inmate
participation in its education and vocational programs, it does
not collect sufficient individual inmate‑specific data in a manner
that allows it to effectively measure the success of its education
programs. In a request for funding and positions, Corrections
acknowledged that it is unable to adequately track the success
of its education programs overall. This lack of data prevents
Corrections from determining whether it is in compliance with
state law requiring it to make literacy programs available to at
least 60 percent of inmates eligible in the state prison system.
Corrections is in the process of implementing a new statewide
automated data system to track the educational progress
of inmates.
Corrections Cannot Demonstrate Whether Inmates Are Denied Access to
Education and Vocational Programs and Whether Those Programs Are
Effective in Reducing Recidivism
During our review of Corrections’ administration of its education
and vocational programs, we found that while Corrections collects
aggregate data, such as the total number of inmates participating
in a program and the total number of inmates who successfully
complete a program, it does not maintain data for individual
inmates’ participation in education programs once the inmates
leave the institution. As a result, Corrections cannot demonstrate
whether or not inmates have been denied access to programs.
When inmates are assigned to a program that is full, they are
placed on a waiting list. According to the acting superintendent,
while inmates await placement into a program they are usually
placed in a work assignment. When we asked Corrections to
provide information regarding participants in these education
programs and inmates who were placed on waiting lists for
the programs that were full, a correctional counselor II who is
knowledgeable regarding inmate assignment tracking within the
special projects unit told us that Corrections does not maintain
historical waiting list or program assignment data. He stated that
Corrections maintains data on program assignments as long as
an inmate remains at an institution, but once the inmate leaves

63

64

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Corrections cannot determine
the length of time inmates are on
waiting lists for a program, whether
they are paroled before assigned
to a program or are assigned to the
proper program, or how long they
are in programs.

the institution—by being paroled or transferred to another
institution, for example—the program participation data are not
kept. Therefore, Corrections cannot determine the length of time
inmates are on a waiting list for a program, whether inmates are
paroled before being assigned to a program for which they were
waiting, whether inmates are assigned to the programs their
assessments indicate they should attend, or the length of time
inmates are in programs.
Without program data for individual inmates, Corrections is
also unable to measure the efficacy of its programs in reducing
recidivism rates for inmates. It seems reasonable that a division
administering programs whose purpose is to reduce recidivism
would be able to identify past participants, so as to evaluate its
success. In fact, in a request for funding and positions for a new
automated system, Corrections stated that its Office of Correctional
Education (correctional education) and institution education
departments are unable to adequately track the overall success
of educational programs. Corrections also stated that correctional
education is unable to quantify the number of inmates who
complete programs, demonstrate improvement in reading scores,
or assess the relationship between recidivism rates and enrollment
in its education programs.
A Lack of Data Prevents Corrections From Assessing Compliance With
State Law
Corrections is also unable to determine whether it is meeting
statutorily mandated benchmarks. The Prisoner Literacy Act
was approved in 1987 with the intent of raising the percentage
of prisoners who are functionally literate in order to provide a
corresponding reduction in the recidivism rate. Additionally, state
law requires Corrections to determine the reading level of each
inmate upon commitment, implement in every state prison literacy
programs that are designed to ensure that upon parole inmates
are able to achieve a ninth‑grade reading level, and to make the
program available to at least 60 percent of eligible inmates in
the state prison system.
Because Corrections does not maintain historical waiting list
and program assignment data for individual inmates, it does not
have sufficient data to determine whether it has made literacy
programs available to at least 60 percent of eligible inmates in
the state prison system, in compliance with state law. Although
Corrections produces a monthly education report—which
contains aggregate data, such as the number of inmates whose
test scores indicate a need for literacy programming and the
number of inmates currently assigned to literacy programs—it

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

does not capture this information by inmate. Specifically, in its
February 2009 report, Corrections reported that it had tested
the reading levels of 133,000 inmates and that 68,600 had scored
below the ninth‑grade reading level. However, because it does
not track individual inmate data, Corrections cannot ensure
that the inmates currently assigned to literacy programs are the
ones in need of such programs. Furthermore, because these data
are as of a certain point in time and are not kept historically, it is
impossible for Corrections to determine if it is making literacy
programs available to eligible inmates during their prison terms.
For example, the count of inmates currently assigned to literacy
programs today does not include other inmates who may already
have completed literacy programs during their prison terms, nor
does it include inmates who are not currently participating but who
may be assigned to literacy programs in the future before they are
released. Because Corrections does not maintain individual inmate
data, it cannot determine whether it does or does not comply with
state law requiring it to make the literacy programs—intended to
ensure that inmates have achieved a ninth‑grade reading level upon
parole—available to at least 60 percent of eligible inmates.
When we asked Corrections why it does not maintain individual
inmate data, the acting superintendent stated that there is not
sufficient computerized infrastructure among the institutions. In
fact, she stated that only the principals of each adult institution
consistently have e‑mail accounts. The acting superintendent also
stated that some data are collected and forwarded monthly to
correctional education. However, these are aggregated data that,
for example, identify the total number of inmates participating
in and completing programs, and not individual inmate data. She
stated that teachers at each institution compile these attendance
and participation data by hand and give the information to
the principal’s office, which then sends it to headquarters on a
monthly basis. However, according to the acting superintendent,
headquarters does not have enough staff to compile the aggregate
data gathered by hand at each institution.
In a request for funding and positions to develop and implement a
new data system, Corrections recognized that its current manual
system for accessing, processing, and tracking inmate educational
data was extremely inadequate. Corrections requested funding
and positions for a new statewide automated system to track
the educational progress of inmates. Specifically, Corrections
requested funding to develop and implement the new system over
a three‑year period beginning in fiscal year 2008–09. Corrections’
funding request, which was approved, estimated the cost over the
three fiscal years at $11 million.

In February 2009 Corrections
reported that 68,600 inmates out
of 133,000 inmates tested, had
scored below the ninth-grade
reading level; yet, it cannot ensure
the inmates enrolled in literacy
programs are the ones in need of
such programs.

65

66

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

When we asked the acting superintendent why Corrections decided
to develop a new system rather than use one of its multiple existing
systems, she stated that most of the existing systems are too
antiquated. Additionally, the acting superintendent explained that
Corrections wants its new system to be compliant with California
School Information Systems so that it can communicate with
the California state school system, which would allow for easier
transcript retrieval and storage.
Corrections is currently anticipating
a $250 million budget cut to
its education, vocational, and
rehabilitation programs.

According to the acting chief deputy secretary, Corrections is
currently anticipating a $250 million budget cut to its education,
vocational, and rehabilitation programs. Such a cut would exceed half
of the amount spent on these programs in fiscal year 2007–08. She
stated that Corrections is currently developing its response to this
cut and will be making program changes that will maximize program
participation, efficiency, and effectiveness with the remaining
funding. Because this response has not been formally adopted, the
acting chief deputy secretary was unable to provide us with full
details of upcoming changes to its programs.
Corrections’ Policy Regarding Prisoner Literacy Does Not Align With
State Laws
Corrections’ policy regarding education programs is outdated
and does not align with state laws regarding prisoner literacy.
State law requires Corrections to implement literacy programs in
every state prison designed to ensure that upon parole, inmates
are able to achieve a ninth‑grade reading level and to make these
programs available to at least 60 percent of eligible inmates.
Corrections’ policy states that the warden is responsible for
ensuring that inmates who are reading below the sixth‑grade level
are assigned to adult basic education and that the warden shall
make every effort to assign 15 percent of the inmate population to
academic education. Despite the differences between Corrections’
policy and state law, it appears that Corrections’ programs are
more closely aligned with the requirements of state law. For
example, Corrections provides its adult basic education program
with three levels to teach reading through not only the sixth‑grade
level, per its policy, but through the ninth‑grade level, per state
law. However, as we stated earlier, Corrections cannot determine
whether it is meeting the requirement to make literacy programs
available to at least 60 percent of eligible inmates.
Because Corrections has not updated its policy regarding adult
education programs since 1993, staff may not be clear on the
relevant requirements that should be met. When we asked
Corrections why it had not updated its policies regarding statutory
requirements for education programs, the acting superintendent

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

told us that she did not know why the policy had not been updated
previously. However, she told us that the Office of Correctional
Education is in the process of rewriting Corrections’ adult
education program policies to reflect the requirements of state law.
Recommendations
To ensure that it is addressing the program needs of its inmate
population in the most cost‑effective manner, Corrections should
develop a staffing plan that allocates teacher and instructor
positions at each institution based on the program needs of its
inmate population.
To ensure that it can determine whether it is in compliance with
state law and can measure the efficacy of its programs in reducing
recidivism, Corrections should track, maintain, and use historical
program assignment and waiting list data by inmate.
To ensure that staff are aware of the relevant requirements related
to prisoner literacy, Corrections should continue its efforts to
update its adult education program policies.

67

68

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Chapter 3
TELEMEDICINE EXPANSION IS IN ITS INFANCY
Chapter Summary
California Prison Health Care Services (Health Care Services)
currently uses telemedicine—two‑way video conferencing
between an inmate and a health care provider—to furnish medical
specialty care to inmates housed in the adult institutions run by
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(Corrections). Additionally, Corrections uses telemedicine to
provide psychiatric care (telepsychiatry) at several institutions.
Health Care Services’ use of telemedicine has expanded in the
last three years, but it currently uses time‑consuming manual and
paper processes that limit the growth of the program. Although
Health Care Services has begun an initiative to expand the use of
telemedicine, there has not yet been sufficient progress to assess the
results of these efforts.
The use of telemedicine reduces the costs to transport and
guard inmates who otherwise may need to be taken out of the
institution to visit medical specialty care providers. However,
Health Care Services has gathered only limited data related to the
cost‑effectiveness of using telemedicine. Also, Health Care Services
has limited information available regarding the effectiveness of
telemedicine use. In addition to medical specialty care, Corrections
indicated that it provides mental health care using telepsychiatry
consultations. However, according to Corrections’ deputy director
of psychiatric services, Corrections currently provides mental
health care at each institution, and as a result, using telemedicine
for mental health care does not reduce inmate guarding and
transportation costs.
Health Care Services Is in the Early Stages of Expanding Telemedicine
Health Care Services has expanded the use of the telemedicine
program in the last three years. According to Health Care
Services data, summarized in Figure 12 on the following page,
Health Care Services and Corrections conducted just over
16,000 telemedicine consultations during fiscal year 2007–08,
including 10,500 consultations for medical specialties at 32 adult
institutions. As shown in Figure 12, this represents more than
twice the number of medical specialty consultations provided in
fiscal year 2005–06; the growth includes consultations conducted
at an additional 14 institutions. Since fiscal year 1997–98, Health
Care Services has conducted telemedicine consultations to some

69

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

degree at all 33 of Corrections’ adult institutions. In addition, the
data show that Corrections provided about 5,500 telepsychiatry
consultations at eight institutions in fiscal year 2007–08. The
program review nurse consultant (nurse consultant) at Health Care
Services’ Office of Telemedicine Services stated that telemedicine
medical consultations in fiscal year 2008–09 were about 50 percent
higher than the previous year. Despite the rapid growth over the
past three years, according to the federal receiver’s Turnaround
Plan of Action and the Telemedicine Project Charter, insufficient
telemedicine infrastructure exists to support the plan to vastly
expand the telemedicine program.
Figure 12
Growth in Telemedicine Consultations at California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s
Adult Institutions
Fiscal Years 1997–98 to 2007–08
18,000

Psychiatric care
Medical speciality

16,000
14,000
Number of Visits

12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000

2007–08

2006–07

2005–06

2004–05

2003–04

2002–03

2001–02

2000–01

1999–2000

1998–99

0
1997–98

70

Fiscal Year
Source:  Bureau of State Audits’ compilation from a summary of telemedicine consultations prepared by California Prison Health Care Services’ Office of
Telemedicine Services.
Note:  This data is used for background purposes only and we did not assess its reliability.

According to the nurse consultant, Health Care Services
currently uses time‑consuming manual and paper processes
that are challenging to coordinate in the course of operating
the telemedicine program. The nurse consultant indicated that
more than 1,000 telemedicine appointments each month are
scheduled through a manual process using pen, paper, and fax.
Currently, institutions fax requests for telemedicine service to

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

headquarters, where staff who have previously booked blocks
of appointments with providers attempt to match requests with
available times.
The nurse consultant also indicated that currently each institution
maintains medical records in paper form, which must be located
and faxed to the provider prior to each appointment. The records
are then returned to the records storage facility until the time of
the appointment, when they must be located again and provided
to the nurse who facilitates the appointment. Thus, according to
the nurse consultant, appointments must be booked several days in
advance, which can be problematic, as the inmates’ schedules are
not available to the telemedicine appointment scheduler. The time
and resources necessary to conduct each of these processes is a
significant limitation.
According to the nurse consultant, Health Care Services plans
to implement electronic systems—such as the Health Care
Scheduling System—to address these issues. However, because the
timeline of this system is not certain, Health Care Services’ Office
of Telemedicine Services is also developing an interim system to
partially automate scheduling. The nurse consultant informed us
that the limited number of telemedicine headquarters staff are
currently prevented from focusing on maintaining relationships
with the institutions and identifying the institutions’ needs for
telemedicine care. The nurse consultant also stated that Health
Care Services has requested additional staff for scheduling.
According to the nurse consultant, the availability and dedication
of resources at each institution also limits the use of telemedicine.
Health Care Services does not have a policy requiring the use
of telemedicine. As a result, according to the nurse consultant,
telemedicine is requested at the discretion of medical staff at each
institution, and at times some institutions choose to use the facilities
equipped for telemedicine for other purposes. In addition, health care
staff trained to facilitate a telemedicine appointment may be assigned
other duties that potentially limit the time they are available for
telemedicine. According to the nurse consultant, to better coordinate
the use and growth of the telemedicine program, the Office of
Telemedicine Services has begun an initiative to expand the use
of telemedicine at six institutions. This initiative began in July 2009,
and as such it is not yet possible to assess the results of these efforts.
A 2008 review of the telemedicine program, which Health Care
Services contracted with a consultant to provide, identified
numerous shortcomings and recommended significant revisions to
program management policies, existing hardware and technology,
and related human resources. The consultant who is experienced
with using telemedicine in the prison environment, compared the

To better coordinate the use
and growth of the telemedicine
program, the Office of Telemedicine
Services has begun an initiative to
expand the use of telemedicine at
six institutions.

71

72

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

existing status and capabilities of Health Care Services’ telemedicine
systems to best practices and made recommendations for
improvement. The review concluded that the telemedicine system
suffers from neglect, mismanagement, and obsolete technology,
among other things. The consultant identified opportunities
to improve Health Care Services’ telemedicine infrastructure,
facilities, staffing and personnel, workflow, and perceptions of
telemedicine. To help address the concerns identified and develop
an efficient and modern telemedicine program, the consultant
recommended 24 actions that Health Care Services should take.
Health Care Services’ staff indicated that many of the consultant’s
recommendations have been adopted, and at our request, Health
Care Services described its status in implementing each of the
adopted recommendations. As shown in Appendix D, Health
Care Services’ staff reported that they have fully completed
implementing five of the 16 short‑term recommendations and
two of the eight long‑term recommendations. For example,
Health Care Services indicated that it has provided leadership in
the telemedicine program by hiring a telemedicine manager and
a telemedicine project manager. However, several of the remaining
recommendations require improvements to infrastructure and
policies, and while Health Care Services has indicated that
it intends to make these improvements, some are still in the
planning stages.
Staff Have Limited Information Regarding the Cost‑Effectiveness of
Telemedicine Consultations

According to Health Care Services,
using telemedicine avoids having to
transport inmates from the institution
to see the provider—estimated to
reduce the per‑visit cost for guarding
and transporting inmates by
roughly $800.

Health Care Services uses telemedicine to provide medical specialty
care to inmates. Medical specialty care is generally provided by
contracted physicians or hospitals by transporting the inmate to
an outside facility. Additionally, the nurse consultant indicated
that contracted specialty care physicians may provide care to
inmates at the institutions. The nurse consultant stated that by
using telemedicine, Health Care Services avoids having to transport
inmates from the institution to see the provider, which reduces
the cost for guarding and transporting inmates and also improves
safety by keeping the inmate within an institution’s walls. The nurse
consultant also explained that telemedicine improves access to
care because inmates can consult with medical specialists from
throughout California without consideration of the distance.
However, Health Care Services has limited information regarding
the cost‑effectiveness of using telemedicine. According to a chief in a
Medical Contracts Section, Health Care Services usually negotiates
a standard rate with physicians and may provide a higher rate if the

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

physician must travel to see inmates. Thus, telemedicine provides a
cost savings by reducing the costs incurred for either transporting the
inmate to the physician or transporting the physician to the inmate.
Health Care Services estimates that each telemedicine visit saves
roughly $800 in guarding and transportation costs and that by
using telemedicine, Corrections could avoid millions of dollars
in guarding and transportation costs. To create its cost estimate,
Health Care Services performed a survey of many Corrections
institutions to estimate how much time is spent transporting inmates
to see a medical specialist, which it used to estimate the cost savings
of a telemedicine visit. However, this survey did not account for
other factors that might affect the cost savings, and it relied on the
estimates of institution staff regarding the average distance inmates
are transported for medical purposes. For example, it did not take
into account the nature of the medical issues for which inmates were
transported and whether the visit, in fact, could be replaced with
a telemedicine consultation. It also assumed that 50 percent of the
visits were related to the more costly high‑security inmates. Thus,
Health Care Services has gathered only limited data related to the
cost and effectiveness of using telemedicine.
Additionally, according to the chief medical officer of utilization
management, in June 2009 Health Care Services began to
review requests for telemedicine consultations to ensure that the
consultations meet evidence‑based guidelines for medical necessity.
However, telemedicine consultations may not fulfill the medical need
and may result in an additional in‑person visit. The chief medical
officer also indicated that the results of telemedicine consultations
are not tracked, and that Health Care Services is unable to determine
how many consultations met the medical need using telemedicine
and how many subsequently required an in‑person visit. Because
of this lack of information, Health Care Services does not know
if the cost of unproductive telemedicine appointments offsets the
potential cost savings. The nurse consultant indicated that this
information will be tracked by the Health Care Scheduling System
in the future. In a subsequent report, we plan to provide additional
information on medical specialty visits similar to the types of
consultations that Health Care Services is currently providing
through telemedicine and the costs associated with these visits.
Psychiatric Use of Telemedicine May Address Vacancies but Does Not
Significantly Affect Medical Guarding and Transportation Costs
Data provided by Health Care Services shows that Corrections
has provided mental health care using telepsychiatry for
more than 10 years. Corrections’ deputy director of psychiatric
services stated that telepsychiatry has been used to provide

Telemedicine consultations may not
fulfill the medical need of inmates
and may result in an additional
in-person visit—it is unknown if the
cost of unproductive telemedicine
appointments offsets the potential
cost savings.

73

74

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

psychiatric care at institutions with vacant positions in this area.
According to the nurse consultant, telepsychiatry consultations
are conducted between inmate mental health patients and
Corrections’ psychiatrists working in a Sacramento office.
In fiscal year 2007–08, Corrections’ conducted more than
5,500 telepsychiatry consultations at eight institutions, according
to data provided by Health Care Services. As shown earlier in
Figure 12, the number of telepsychiatry consultations has fluctuated;
however, it has averaged more than 4,750 consultations per year
since fiscal year 2000–01. According to Corrections’ deputy
director of psychiatric services, inmate psychiatric care is currently
provided by Corrections’ psychiatrists at each institution and does
not generally require the inmate to leave the institution. Because
psychiatric care is provided in the institution, telepsychiatry does
not reduce inmate guarding and transportation costs.
Recommendations
To minimize costs through the use of telemedicine, Health Care
Services should do the following:
•	 Review the effectiveness of telemedicine consultations to better
understand how to use telemedicine.
•	 Perform a more comprehensive comparison between the cost
of using telemedicine and the cost of traditional consultations,
beyond the guarding and transportation costs, so that it can
make informed decisions regarding the cost‑effectiveness of
using telemedicine.
To increase the use of the telemedicine system, Health Care
Services should do the following:
•	 Continue to move forward on its initiative to expand the use of
telemedicine in Corrections’ institutions.
•	 Continue to implement the recommendations that it has adopted
from the consultant’s review of telemedicine capabilities.
•	 Maintain a focus on developing and improving its computer
systems, such as the Health Care Scheduling System, to increase
the efficiency of using telemedicine.

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

We conducted this review under the authority vested in the California State Auditor by Section 8543
et seq. of the California Government Code and according to generally accepted government auditing
standards. We limited our review to those areas specified in the audit scope section of the report.
Respectfully submitted,

ELAINE M. HOWLE, CPA
State Auditor
Date:	 September 8, 2009
Staff:	

Tammy Lozano, CPA, CGFM, Project Manager
Jonnathon D. Kline
Angela Dickison, CPA
Jennifer D. Loos, CPA
Daniel P. Andersen
Michelle J. Baur, CISA
Gregory B. Harrison, CIA, MBA
Rebecca Honeywell
Joe Jones, CPA, CIA
Laura Peth
Benjamin Ward, CISA, ACDA
Benjamin W. Wolfgram, ACDA

Legal:	 Scott A. Baxter, JD
For questions regarding the contents of this report, please contact
Margarita Fernández, Chief of Public Affairs, at 916.445.0255.

75

76

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Appendix A
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AND REHABILITATION AVERAGE INMATE COST BY
INSTITUTION BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007–08
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s
(Corrections) inmate population in the 33 adult institutions it
operates throughout the State numbered more than 163,000 inmates
on average during fiscal year 2007–08. Comprising 10 percent of the
State’s General Fund budget, Corrections expenditures were roughly
$10 billion in fiscal year 2007–08. Corrections spends 80 percent of
its $10 billion on adult operations, making the average annual cost to
incarcerate an adult inmate $49,300.
In Table A on the following pages we present Corrections’ cost
per inmate at each of its 33 adult institutions. The institutions are
presented in groups based on Corrections’ five primary missions, as
described in the Introduction. The two exceptions to this grouping
are the Sierra Conservation Center and the California Correction
Center, which administer camps that house minimum and
medium custody inmates throughout the State. They are presented
separately from other institutions within the general population
levels II and III mission. As discussed in Chapter 1, higher average
costs per inmate are associated with certain missions.
We determined the average cost per inmate using Corrections’
accounting records and the average daily inmate population for
each institution for fiscal year 2007–08. In Table A we group
expenditures into general categories: inmate housing, security,
and support; inmate health care; education, vocational, and other
rehabilitation; and headquarters. As discussed in Chapter 1,
we allocated a portion of the overall administration costs for
Corrections’ headquarters to adult operations, which resulted in an
additional cost of $1,474 per inmate.
In addition to the costs classified as headquarters overall
administration, we found $1.1 billion in additional expenditures
within the other cost areas that we were unable to attribute
to specific institutions. We have titled these amounts, which
are primarily costs charged to Corrections’ headquarters, as
unallocated support and administration expenditures in the
table. Expenditures within this category include money spent for
headquarters support units such as accounting and training, as
well as $145 million in support of Corrections’ inmate health care;
$137 million for office support for the federally appointed receiver;
and includes $329 million for facilities planning, design, and
(text continued on page 82 )

77

78

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Table A
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Average Cost Per Inmate
by Institution Based on Average Daily Population
Fiscal Year 2007–08

FEMALE OFFENDERS

RECEPTION CENTERS

CENTRAL
VALLEY
CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA
STATE PRISON WOMEN’S INSTITUTION
FOR WOMEN
FACILITY
FOR WOMEN

Average daily population

4,107

WASCO
STATE
PRISON

CALIFORNIA
R. J. DONOVAN
STATE PRISON,
DEUEL
CALIFORNIA
CORRECTIONAL
NORTH KERN LOS ANGELES VOCATIONAL INSTITUTION SAN QUENTIN
FACILITY AT
STATE PRISON
COUNTY
INSTITUTION
FOR MEN
STATE PRISON ROCK MOUNTAIN

4,150

2,574

6,027

5,517

5,184

3,946

6,150

5,267

4,659

$12,934

$13,340

$18,112

$14,463

$14,965

$15,769

$16,770

$17,772

$18,306

$17,390

Benefits and other pay

5,721

5,729

7,889

6,497

6,724

7,157

7,113

8,197

7,731

7,903

Overtime pay

1,921

2,196

2,800

2,534

2,329

2,909

2,277

3,679

4,230

4,325

Inmate Housing, Security, and Support Costs
Regular pay

Facilities and operations
Subtotals

2,941

2,331

3,968

2,308

2,587

2,600

2,580

3,066

3,822

2,965

$23,517

$23,596

$32,769

$25,802

$26,605

$28,435

$28,740

$32,714

$34,089

$32,583

Inmate Health Care Costs
Total pay and benefits

$5,443

$6,854

$11,201

$4,231

$5,399

$6,416

$7,365

$8,510

$5,863

$7,389

External contracts

4,577

3,782

3,816

4,654

3,217

3,552

5,115

3,596

4,179

5,450

Health care supplies

1,410

2,123

1,776

1,169

1,127

1,190

1,455

1,881

1,207

1,706

Facilities and operations

1,304

1,773

371

571

1,068

(2,075)*

225

2,629

1,491

$12,734

$14,532

$17,164

$10,314

$12,226

$11,860

$14,212

$13,878

$16,036

$2,384

$2,334

$1,682

$1,247

$1,255

$1,538

$1,662

$1,102

$1,379

$1,480

Overall administration

$1,474

$1,474

$1,474

$1,474

$1,474

$1,474

$1,474

$1,474

$1,474

$1,474

Unallocated support and
administration†

7,512

7,512

7,512

6,519

6,519

6,519

6,519

6,519

6,519

6,519

$47,621

$49,448

$43,409

$46,167

$50,192

$50,255

$56,021

$57,339

$58,092

Subtotals
Education, Vocational, and
Other Rehabilitation Costs

(1,687)*
$8,367

Headquarters Costs

Average Cost Per Inmate

$60,601

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

GENERAL POPULATION LEVELS II AND III AND CAMPS
CAMP INSTITUTIONS

CALIFORNIA
SIERRA
CORRECTIONAL CONSERVATION
CENTER
CENTER

GENERAL POPULATION INSTITUTIONS

CALIFORNIA STATE
AVENAL
FOLSOM
PRISON, SOLANO STATE PRISON STATE PRISON

CORRECTIONAL
CHUCKAWALLA
TRAINING
IRONWOOD
VALLEY
FACILITY
STATE PRISON STATE PRISON

CALIFORNIA
REHABILITATION
CENTER

6,188

6,099

5,948

7,486

4,116

6,628

4,657

3,212

4,436

$11,171

$11,343

$12,006

$11,921

$14,008

$12,866

$14,191

$14,224

$16,592

5,208

5,233

5,055

5,042

6,164

6,100

6,591

6,127

7,290

2,948

2,669

2,169

2,075

2,104

2,806

3,083

2,684

2,164

4,832

6,204

2,489

2,453

1,075

2,863

2,658

3,498

3,178

$24,159

$25,449

$21,719

$21,491

$23,351

$24,635

$26,523

$26,533

$29,224

$2,106

$2,648

$3,688

$3,304

$4,027

$3,218

$3,690

$4,270

$4,421

1,625

1,178

3,638

5,081

1,633

4,061

2,810

3,817

1,895

195

340

1,158

617

308

449

797

644

549

(299)*

346

(10)*

372

$4,570

$4,715

$8,175

$8,832

$7,883

$7,597

$7,154

$8,526

$7,485

$1,081

$1,018

$1,477

$1,687

$1,737

$1,170

$1,586

$1,769

$1,474

$1,474

$1,474

$1,474

$1,474

$1,474

$1,474

$1,474

$1,474

$1,474

6,518

6,518

6,518

6,518

6,518

6,518

6,518

6,518

6,518

$37,802

$39,174

$39,363

$40,002

$40,963

$41,394

$43,255

$44,820

$46,175

(309)*

809
(362)*

764
1,459

continued on next page . . .

79

80

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

GENERAL POPULATION LEVELS III AND IV

CENTINELA
STATE PRISON

Average daily population

5,065

CALIFORNIA
SUBSTANCE ABUSE
TREATMENT FACILITY

CALIPATRIA
STATE PRISON

CALIFORNIA
MEN’S COLONY

PLEASANT VALLEY
STATE PRISON

MULE CREEK
STATE PRISON

CALIFORNIA
MEDICAL FACILITY

7,421

4,190

6,633

5,386

3,725

3,061

Inmate Housing, Security, and Support Costs
Regular pay

$14,800

$14,103

$15,939

$14,066

$14,778

$16,347

$22,136

Benefits and other pay

6,903

6,337

7,225

5,982

6,720

7,095

9,544

Overtime pay

2,138

2,131

3,004

1,957

2,587

1,599

3,832

Facilities and operations

2,780

2,484

2,299

2,784

2,777

2,982

2,552

$26,621

$25,055

$28,467

$24,789

$26,862

$28,023

$38,064

$3,361

$4,016

$3,498

$8,056

$3,295

$7,525

$19,858

2,675

5,478

2,483

2,326

5,260

3,795

11,301

365

1,130

306

2,065

929

1,870

6,823

Subtotals
Inmate Health Care Costs
Total pay and benefits
External contracts
Health care supplies
Facilities and operations
Subtotals
Education, Vocational, and
Other Rehabilitation Costs

997

2,576

3,329

$6,893

492

$10,062

(562)*

$7,284

$15,023

$12,813

$13,149

(41)*

$36,122

(1,860)*

$1,594

$1,923

$1,580

$1,229

$1,639

$1,672

$1,139

$1,474

$1,474

$1,474

$1,474

$1,474

$1,474

$1,474

6,522

6,522

6,522

6,522

6,522

6,522

6,522

$43,104

$45,036

$45,327

$49,037

$49,310

$50,840

$83,321

Headquarters Costs
Overall administration
Unallocated support
and administration†
Average Cost Per Inmate

Sources:  Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (Corrections) accounting records and Distributed
Data Processing System (DDPS) average daily inmate population for fiscal year 2007–08.
Note:   This table does not include Corrections Standards Authority expenditures of $221 million and capital outlay of $150 million, some of which may
be associated with adult operations. Because Corrections’ accounting records do not associate these amounts with adult institutions, we did not allocate
these costs.
We assessed DDPS to be of undetermined reliability for the purposes of this audit because we did not conduct accuracy or completeness due to a lack of
centralized storage and because the source documents are located at 33 institutions throughout the state.
*	 Negative amounts are due to accounting adjustments for actual expenditures subsequent to fiscal year end to reverse accrual estimates and record
actual expenditures.
†	 Corrections does not allocate this category of costs to specific adult institutions. However, because these costs support adult operations, we
allocated these amounts to all adult institutions using the average daily population for the mission each institution is assigned. Additionally, the
amounts allocated to each mission differ because there were some headquarters costs that we were able to allocate to specific missions.

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

HIGH SECURITY AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING

KERN VALLEY
STATE PRISON

HIGH DESERT
STATE PRISON

CALIFORNIA
CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION

SALINAS VALLEY
STATE PRISON

CALIFORNIA
STATE PRISON,
CORCORAN

PELICAN BAY
STATE PRISON

CALIFORNIA
STATE PRISON,
SACRAMENTO

4,927

4,433

5,470

4,189

5,692

3,438

3,209

$17,351

$16,313

$20,498

$17,764

$19,811

$24,935

$26,538

7,554

8,116

9,233

7,708

8,820

11,884

11,779

2,549

3,194

2,093

3,856

2,555

3,313

3,809

2,057

3,134

3,601

2,797

3,896

3,776

5,424

$29,511

$30,757

$35,425

$32,125

$35,082

$43,908

$47,550

$5,053

$4,718

$4,389

$5,727

$8,407

$8,356

$14,028

1,987

3,052

4,095

5,001

3,647

2,825

7,074

655

783

881

1,863

1,418

1,045

2,923

994

2,029

4,625

1,910

832

$8,689

$10,582

$9,112

(253)*

$17,216

$15,382

$13,058

$23,409

(616)*

$1,107

$1,371

$1,743

$1,001

$1,049

$1,072

$1,227

$1,474

$1,474

$1,474

$1,474

$1,474

$1,474

$1,474

6,522

6,522

6,522

6,522

6,522

6,522

6,522

$47,303

$50,706

$54,276

$58,338

$59,509

$66,034

$80,182

81

82

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

construction management. In addition, some institution support costs
are included in this amount, including $154 million for substance
abuse programs provided at some institutions, $12 million for
inmate classification services, and $38 million for Corrections’
transportation unit. Although Corrections does not associate
these costs with specific institutions, in an attempt to more
accurately disclose the comprehensive costs of incarcerating an
inmate, we allocated these amounts among all the inmates at the
33 institutions.
These unallocated support costs may also include headquarters
support and administration associated with populations not housed
in the 33 adult institutions, such as administration costs of inmates
housed in county or community correctional facilities. However,
Corrections’ accounting records are not specific enough for us to
identify these costs or allocate them to the relevant populations. For
this reason, the unallocated support and administration costs could
include some funds associated with other inmate populations.
Finally, the costs per inmate do not include expenditures related to
the Corrections Standards Authority, whose purpose is described
in the Introduction, of $221 million or capital outlay of $150 million
because Corrections’ accounting records do not indicate allocation
of these costs to specific institutions. Therefore, we did not include
these costs in our calculations.

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Appendix B
SERIOUS OR VIOLENT FELONIES AS DEFINED BY
CALIFORNIA STATE LAW
The three strikes law is intended to ensure longer prison sentences
and greater punishment for offenders who commit a felony and
were previously convicted of a serious or violent felony. The felony
for which the offender is currently convicted need not be serious
or violent. As shown in Table B, state law describes which felonies
are considered serious or violent, and some crimes are considered
both serious and violent. For example, murder is considered both
a serious and a violent felony. Courts commonly refer to a person’s
prior convictions for serious and violent felonies as strikes. The list
of offenses that may count as strikes has expanded since California
enacted the three strikes law in 1994. Specifically, in March 2000,
through the passage of Proposition 21, voters expanded the list
of offenses that constitute strikes. In 2006 the Legislature again
expanded the list of offenses.
Table B
Felonies Considered Serious or Violent
OFFENSE

SERIOUS (PC 1192.7 (C))

VIOLENT (PC 667.5 (C))

Murder





Voluntary manslaughter





Mayhem





Rape



*

Sodomy

†

*

Oral copulation

†

*

Lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14 years of age

†

*

Any felony in which the defendant inflicts great bodily injury on any person
other than an accomplice

†

*

Any felony in which the defendant personally uses a firearm



*

Robbery

†



Arson



*

Sexual penetration

†

*

Attempted murder





Exploding or igniting, or attempting to explode or ignite, any destructive
device with the intent to commit murder



Willfully and maliciously exploding or igniting any destructive device, which
causes mayhem, death, bodily injury, or great bodily injury of any person



Exploding a destructive device or any explosive with the intent to injure or
murder or that causes bodily injury, great bodily injury, or mayhem


continued on next page . . .

83

84

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

OFFENSE

Kidnapping

SERIOUS (PC 1192.7 (C))

VIOLENT (PC 667.5 (C))




*

Assault with the intent to commit rape, sodomy, or other crimes
Continuous sexual abuse of a child





Carjacking





Extortion and threats to victims or witnesses committed as part or in
association with a criminal street gang



Burglary of the first degree



*

Using, discharging, and injuring someone with a firearm while committing
certain felonies such as murder, rape, or kidnapping



 

Using a weapon of mass destruction

†

 *

Assault with the intent to commit rape or robbery



Assault with a deadly weapon or instrument on a peace officer



 

Assault by a life prisoner on a non-inmate



 

Assault with a deadly weapon by an inmate



 

Holding of a hostage by a person confined in state prison



Any felony in which the defendant personally used a dangerous or
deadly weapon



Selling, furnishing, administering, giving, or offering to sell, furnish,
administer, or give to a minor any heroin, cocaine, phencyclidine
(PCP), or any methamphetamine-related drug, or any precursors of
methamphetamines



Grand theft involving a firearm



Certain felonies committed as part of or in association with a criminal
street gang



Assault with the intent to commit mayhem, rape, sodomy, or oral copulation



 

Throwing acid or flammable substances with the intent to injure or disfigure
another person



 

Assault with a deadly weapon, firearm, machine gun, assault weapon, or
semiautomatic firearm, on a person, peace officer, or firefighter



Assault with a deadly weapon against a public transit employee, custodial
officer, or school employee



Discharge of a firearm in an inhabited dwelling, vehicle, or aircraft



Rape or sexual penetration in concert with another person



Shooting from a vehicle



Intimidation of victims or witnesses



Criminal threats



 

Any attempt to commit a serious felony listed in California Penal Code,
Section 1192.7 (c) other than assault



 

Any conspiracy to commit an offense listed in California Penal Code, Section
1192.7 (c)



 

Any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life





Attempt to commit a felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the
state prison for life



 



California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

OFFENSE

JUVENILE (WIC 707 (6))

Assault with a firearm or destructive device

‡

Assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury

‡

Discharge of a firearm at an inhabited or occupied dwelling

‡

Any felony offense in which the minor personally used a certain weapon
such as a dagger, metal knuckles, or short-barreled shotgun

‡

Bribing or inducing witnesses

‡

Manufacturing, compounding, or selling a controlled substance

‡

Escape by a juvenile where great bodily injury is intentionally inflicted on an
employee of the juvenile facility

‡

Torture

‡

Aggravated mayhem

‡

Committing or attempting certain felonies against a senior citizen or
disabled person

‡

Kidnapping for ransom, robbery, with bodily harm, while carjacking, or with
the intent to commit specified sex crimes

‡

Carjacking while armed with a dangerous or deadly weapon

‡

Sources:  California Penal Code, sections 667.5 (c) and 1192.7 (c) and California Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 707(b).
*	 Certain types of this crime are violent felonies.
†	 Certain types of this crime are serious felonies.
‡	 While juvenile offenses are not expressly defined as serious or violent felonies, we use the term “serious or violent felony” to
describe any offense that could count as a strike.

85

86

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Appendix C
SELECTED PROGRAMS AVAILABLE BY INSTITUTION
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation aims
to reduce the number of people returning to prison by providing
education, vocational, and other rehabilitation programs within its
institutions. The majority of adult institutions offer traditional adult
basic education, general education development, English language
development, and vocational programs, as well as nontraditional
independent study and distance learning opportunities. In addition,
some institutions offer high school and computer lab courses and
other rehabilitation programs. Table C on the following pages lists
some of the programs available to inmates at the 33 adult institutions.

87

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

CALIPATRIA STATE PRISON

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL CENTER

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
WOMEN’S FACILITY

CENTINELA STATE PRISON

CALIFORNIA INSTITUTION
FOR MEN

CALIFORNIA INSTITUTION
FOR WOMEN

CALIFORNIA MEN’S COLONY

CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY

CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON,
CORCORAN

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION CENTER

CORRECTIONAL TRAINING FACILITY

PROGRAM TITLE

AVENAL STATE PRISON

Table C
Selected Education, Vocational, and Other Rehabilitation Programs Offered to Inmates at the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Adult Institutions as of February 2009

TOTAL INSTITUTIONS
WITH PROGRAM ACTIVE

88

5

3

5

5

5

5

4

5

5

4

4

5

5

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

0

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

Academic Programs (noncomputer lab)
English Language Development Program

24

Adult Basic Education I Program

31

Adult Basic Education II Program

30

Adult Basic Education III Program

30

General Equivalency Diploma Courses

25

High School Courses

9

Subtotals
Academic Programs (computer lab)
Computer Labs (self-contained)
Computer Labs (pullout)

15
2

Subtotals
Nontraditional Programs
Independent Study

26

Distance Learning

25

Subtotals
Literacy Programs
Voluntary Literacy Programs

26

Subtotals
Rehabilitative Programs
Substance Abuse Programs
Subtotals

20

CHUCKAWALLA VALLEY STATE PRISON
DEUEL VOCATIONAL INSTITUTION
FOLSOM STATE PRISON
HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON
IRONWOOD STATE PRISON
KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON
CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON,
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
MULE CREEK STATE PRISON
NORTH KERN STATE PRISON
PELICAN BAY STATE PRISON
PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON
R.J. DONOVAN CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY AT ROCK MOUNTAIN
CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON,
SACRAMENTO
CALIFORNIA SUBSTANCE ABUSE
TREATMENT FACILITY
SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER
CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON, SOLANO
SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON
SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON
VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN
WASCO STATE PRISON

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

5
0
5
6
4
6
2
6
4
4
5
6
6
5
5
6
5
3
6
0

1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0

0
2
2
1
2
2
0
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

continued on next page . . .

89

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

CALIPATRIA STATE PRISON

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL CENTER

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
WOMEN’S FACILITY

CENTINELA STATE PRISON

CALIFORNIA INSTITUTION
FOR MEN

CALIFORNIA INSTITUTION
FOR WOMEN

CALIFORNIA MEN’S COLONY

CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY

CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON,
CORCORAN

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION CENTER

CORRECTIONAL TRAINING FACILITY

PROGRAM TITLE

AVENAL STATE PRISON

September 2009

TOTAL INSTITUTIONS
WITH PROGRAM ACTIVE

90

14

10

10

13

8

14

7

3

10

4

8

9

11

Vocational Programs
Auto Body

16

Auto Mechanics

14

Building Maintenance

8

Carpentry

9

Cosmetology

2

Dry Cleaning

8

Drywall Installer/Taper

1

Electrical Construction (Work)

8

Electronics
Eyewear
Graphic Arts
Household Repair

18
2
16
1

Janitorial

18

Landscape Gardening

20

Machine Shop (Automotive)

2

Machine Shop (Practical)

5

Masonry
Mill & Cabinet Work
Office Machines
Office Services and Related Technologies

9
16
2
24

Painting

4

Plumbing

8

Refrigeration
Roofer
Sheet Metal Work

10
1
2

Small Engine Repair

11

Welding

19

Subtotals

Sources:  California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s monthly report on education for February 2009 provided by staff of the Division of
Education, Vocations, and Offender Programs; and summary of institutions offering substance abuse programs effective February 2009 provided by the
deputy director of the Division of Addiction and Recovery Services.
= Program with one or more active sessions.

CHUCKAWALLA VALLEY STATE PRISON
DEUEL VOCATIONAL INSTITUTION
FOLSOM STATE PRISON
HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON
IRONWOOD STATE PRISON
KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON
CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON,
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
MULE CREEK STATE PRISON
NORTH KERN STATE PRISON
PELICAN BAY STATE PRISON
PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON
R.J. DONOVAN CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY AT ROCK MOUNTAIN
CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON,
SACRAMENTO
CALIFORNIA SUBSTANCE ABUSE
TREATMENT FACILITY
SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER
CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON, SOLANO
SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON
SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON
VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN
WASCO STATE PRISON

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

10

0

9

2

16

7

3

9

0

1

15

4

1

17

9

10

5

2

13

0

91

92

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Appendix D
CALIFORNIA PRISON HEALTH CARE SERVICES’ PROGRESS
IN IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE
TELEMEDICINE PROGRAM
Telemedicine allows the inmate and medical provider to
communicate through video conferencing, thereby reducing
the need for the inmate to be transported out of the institution.
Currently, California Prison Health Care Services (Health Care
Services) uses telemedicine to provide specialty medical care
to inmates in the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation’s adult institutions.
Health Care Services contracted with a consultant experienced
in using telemedicine in a prison environment to complete a
review in 2008 of Health Care Services’ telemedicine program.
The consultant concluded that the telemedicine system suffers
from neglect, mismanagement, and obsolete technology, among
other things. The consultant provided Health Care Services with
recommendations to improve the program. Table D provides
the consultant’s recommendations, indicates whether the
recommendations were adopted by Health Care Services, and
lists the progress of Health Care Services in implementing the
recommendations. We did not verify the accuracy of Health Care
Services’ response to the recommendations.
Table D
California Prison Health Care Services’ Progress in Implementing Consultant
Recommendations
ADOPTED BY
CALIFORNIA PRISON
HEALTH CARE SERVICES

PROGRESS

Identify or procure core leadership for the
telemedicine program.

Yes

Completed

Hired telemedicine manager (December 2008) and
contracted telemedicine project manager (February 2009).

Reorganize and clarify reporting structure.

Yes

Completed

Telemedicine manager reports to director of
clinical operations.

RECOMMENDATION

DESCRIPTION

Short-Term Goals: Six Months to One Year

Project manager reports to chief information officer.
Institutional telemedicine staff report to institutional
nursing management.
Complete setup of rooms and equipment
in all 33 institutions

Yes

Completed

All 33 institutions were set up to use equipment as of
January 2008.

Develop statewide technical support.

Yes

In process

A total of 16 additional technical support staff are currently
being trained to support telemedicine.

Upgrade telecommunications and
transition from integrated services digital
network to internet protocol.

Yes

Planned

Pending network rollout—institutions will begin this
transition later in 2009 and will be completed pending
network rollout in June 2012.
continued on next page . . .

93

94

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

ADOPTED BY
CALIFORNIA PRISON
HEALTH CARE SERVICES

PROGRESS

Upgrade telemedicine equipment to
include all peripherals.

Yes

In process

California Prison Health Care Services (Health Care
Services) plans to implement a standard set of
telemedicine peripherals.

Institute systematic electronic data capture
for tracking use and metrics.

Yes

In process

This will be included in the Health Care Scheduling system.
(See next item.)

Implement real-time electronic scheduling.

Yes

In process

The Health Care Scheduling system will be a part of the
Strategic Offender Management System. This system will be
partially implemented in about half of the institutions in the
next year.

Initiate basic electronic medical record
document management for telemedicine.

Yes

Planned

Systemwide electronic medical records are being
implemented in phases. Clinical data will be stored on the
Clinical Data Repository as various phases are implemented;
however, electronic medical records are planned as an
eventual goal several years from now.

RECOMMENDATION

Develop and communicate vision/plan
widely to include using telemedicine as
required principal escalation for both
primary care and specialty consults.

In process
Partially adopted
Not Adopted

DESCRIPTION

The telemedicine manager is in the process of
developing the plan and process for increasing the use
of telemedicine for medical specialty care—to be used as
principal escalation when medically reasonable.
Health Care Services has no plan to conduct primary care via
telemedicine at this time.

Institute comprehensive and timely
training and appraisal review process.

Yes

Future planning

Health Care Services plans to address this issue within the
long‑term time frame.

Review and standardize external
provider contracts.

Yes

In process

Standard contract language has been drafted to incorporate
into all future contracts.

Implement utilization review process.

Yes

Completed

Health Care Services implemented a statewide Utilization
Management process utilizing InterQual criteria.

Implement electronic follow-up procedures.

Yes

In process

The Health Care Scheduling system is under development.

Standardize scheduling procedures when
real-time electronic scheduling system is
in place.

Yes

In process

This is part of the planned use of the Health Care Scheduling
system under development.

Facilitate the use of existing provider hubs
to reduce disparity of access from one
facility to another.

Yes

Completed

Health Care Services is currently scheduling telemedicine
with providers statewide at all institutions.

Completed

Increased number of presenters to at least one dedicated
staff per institution.

In process

Increasing technical support staff trained to support
telemedicine by 16.

Long-Term Goals: One to Five Years
Increase provider, clinical presenter, help
desk, and technical support staff.

Yes

Create telemedicine equipment depot for
rapid equipment deployment.

Yes

Completed

Equipment backup is currently being housed in Sacramento
and Pelican Bay for deployment as needed.

Standardize and install a comprehensive
scheduling, reporting, and electronic
medical records system for
all medical care.

Yes

Planned

Systemwide electronic medical records are being
implemented in phases. Clinical data will be stored on the
Clinical Data Repository as various phases are implemented;
however, electronic medical records are planned as an
eventual goal several years from now.

Develop treatment protocols for all disease
management groupings.
Partially adopted

Completed

Health Care Services has treatment guidelines for primary
care conditions only.

Not adopted

Contract provider groups develop and maintain their own
criteria and treatment protocols. Providers are required
to follow the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation/Health Care Services medical guidelines
(when applicable).

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

ADOPTED BY
CALIFORNIA PRISON
HEALTH CARE SERVICES

PROGRESS

Develop help desk support protocols.

Yes

In process

Health Care Services has begun to develop telemedicine
help desk support protocols.

Finalize selection and organization
of necessary telemedicine
physician‑provider network.

Yes

Completed

A physician-provider network has been established and is in
the process of being expanded.

Implement primary care telemedicine
support and processes.

No

Not adopted

Partially adopted

In process

RECOMMENDATION

Develop clinical outcome analysis and cost
savings benchmarks for measuring the
telemedicine program.

DESCRIPTION

Health Care Services has no plan to use telemedicine for
primary care at this time. Focus is on specialty services.
Health Care Services has established a quality management
committee that meets regularly to develop, implement, and
monitor clinical operations.

Sources:  Telemedicine Assessment and Roadmap, prepared by the AT&T Center for Telehealth Research and Policy at the University of Texas Medical
Branch and interviews with California Prison Health Care Services’ staff and the Telemedicine Services Project Charter.

95

96

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

97

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

(Agency response provided as text only.)
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Office of the Secretary
P.O. Box 942883
Sacramento, CA 94283-0001
August 21, 2009
Ms. Elaine Howle*
State Auditor
Bureau of State Audits
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Ms. Howle:
This letter represents the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR) response to the
Bureau of State Audits (BSA) report entitled, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: It Fails
To Track and Use Data That Would Allow It to More Effectively Monitor and Manage Its Operations.
We understand this audit was requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee (JLAC) to review and
determine a myriad of costs associated with CDCR operations and programming. We acknowledge that
the scope of this audit was rather broad and the issues it was required to address are extremely complex.
We wish to note, however, that the report does not completely capture the complexity of many of these
issues. For example, your report states that you were “unable to determine the number of custody officers
associated with specific populations such as high-security inmates, violent offenders and specialized units.”
That is because those groups of inmates are not always distinct populations: “high-security” inmates cannot
be cleaved into a discrete category apart from “violent offenders” or “specialized units.” Nor can our prison
missions be so neatly separated. Rather, our inmate population is extraordinarily varied with multiple layers
of overlapping characteristics, and so are our prisons. While we agree that the collection and use of data
associated with inmate characteristics is an endeavor that CDCR must continue to pursue, we do not expect
that this data will yield such simple revelations.

1

2

Additionally, while the report assigns fault solely to CDCR, many of the topics discussed by BSA in this report
are not unilaterally within our purview to address. So while we embrace the recommendation of your
report to seek better data that would allow us to more effectively manage our prisons, it is unclear how our
efforts to do so will directly bear upon or reduce, for example, the costs associated with the three strikes law
or employee benefits.

3

Additionally, CDCR has made progress in several of the areas discussed in your report. For example,
CDCR has significantly reduced overtime usage in recent months by filling vacancies and implementing
a sick leave policy to address excessive sick leave by individual employees. In the fiscal year (FY) ending
June 30, 2009, CDCR had reduced overtime expenditures by approximately $66 million when compared to
FY 2007-08. To cite another example, CDCR is in the process of implementing a case management and

4

*  California State Auditor’s comments begin on page 99.

98

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Ms. Elaine Howle
Page 2

5

placement system based on risk to recidivate and inmate needs, including educational and vocational
needs, which is being piloted at California State Prison, Solano. This system will produce data that is the best
determinant of inmate need, as the Expert Panel on Adult Offender and Recidivism Reduction Planning has
recognized, rather than the use of waiting lists as recommended by your report.
We would like to thank BSA for their work on this report. The CDCR will address BSA’s specific
recommendations in a corrective action plan at 60-day, 6-month, and one-year intervals. If you should have
any questions or concerns, please contact Lee Seale, Deputy Chief of Staff, at (916) 323 6001.

Sincerely,
(Signed by: Brett H. Morgan for)
MATTHEW L. CATE
Secretary

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Comments
CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR’S COMMENTS ON THE
RESPONSE FROM CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION
To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on the
response to our audit report from the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Corrections). The numbers
below correspond to the numbers we have placed in the margin of
Corrections’ response.
We appreciate Corrections’ recognition of the broad scope and
complexity of the issues this audit addresses. While we agree that
this report may not cover each and every nuance of Corrections’
operations, we feel it provides sufficient detail to understand the
issues discussed and to demonstrate that Corrections fails to
maintain and use a variety of basic management information.

1

Corrections’ comment mischaracterizes the nature of this issue.
We did not intend to suggest that the categories of “high‑security”
inmates, “violent offenders”, and “specialized units” were always
distinct populations. As discussed on page 34, because Corrections
does not track costs in sufficient detail to associate inmate
characteristics such as age, security level or custody designation
with their impact on incarceration costs, its ability to compare
inmate populations and the costs of those populations is limited,
regardless of whether inmates are a part of one group or many.
Similarly, because Corrections does not specifically track the costs
of institution characteristics such as the physical design of the
facility or the presence of specialized units that increase costs,
its ability to compare the costs to operate one institution versus
another is also limited.

2

Moreover, while Corrections agrees that collection and use of
data associated with inmate characteristics is an endeavor worth
pursuing, its statement that it does not expect this type of data
to yield simple revelations regarding how to effectively manage
its operations seems to suggest that it believes it will be unable
to identify areas for improvement based on such information,
which contradicts previous assertions concerning the importance
of data collection and analysis. Specifically, as discussed on
page 35, Corrections is in the process of implementing a new data
system that it asserts will allow for statewide data analysis. As
part of its justification for the project to obtain the new system,
currently estimated to cost $175 million, Corrections stated
that it does not have the ability to accurately track the costs of
programs and that having data on inmate costs by facility mission,
location and security level would allow it to improve management

99

100

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

decision‑making and planning. If Corrections doubts that the
tracking of such data will provide it the ability to more efficiently
manage its operations, we are confused as to why it would pursue
implementing a system to track this data.
3

Corrections states that many of the topics discussed in our report
are not solely within its purview to address, and cites two examples.
While we acknowledge that employee benefits and the three strikes
law are not unilaterally within Corrections’ purview to address,
that does not absolve it from the responsibility of better managing
its operations in light of the challenges these factors present.
For example, as we recommend on pages 57 and 58, Corrections
needs to be proactive in encouraging the Department of Personnel
Administration to not agree to provisions in bargaining unit
agreements that permit any type of leave to be counted as time
worked for the purpose of computing overtime compensation—an
employee benefit that affected the amount of overtime Corrections
paid out until February of 2009. Furthermore, as described on
pages 55 and 56, the additional years served by inmates under
the three strikes law represent a significant cost. Although
Corrections does not have discretion regarding some aspects of the
incarceration of inmates under the three strikes law, tracking and
using the types of data we describe throughout this report would
allow it to become more efficient in managing the operational areas
over which it does have control.

4

We find it odd that Corrections could assert that in the fiscal year
ending June 30, 2009 it was able to reduce overtime expenditures by
approximately $66 million when compared to fiscal year 2007–08,
as it was unable to provide us that information when we requested
it in the weeks before we received its response. In fact, in an
e‑mail received from Corrections’ chief of staff three days before
we received Corrections’ response to the audit, he indicated that
Corrections was unable to provide information on the amount of
paid overtime for fiscal year 2008–09 because it only had reliable
data covering the first ten months of the fiscal year.

5

Corrections mischaracterizes the nature of our recommendation
and is confusing assessing inmates’ need for education with
determining if the inmate received the classes the assessment
indicated were needed. If Corrections’ new system currently being
piloted works as intended, it may produce data that is a better
determinant of inmate needs than the waiting lists we describe in
our report. However, we never recommended that waiting lists be
used to determine inmate need. Rather, as stated on page 67, we
recommended that Corrections track, maintain, and use historical
program assignment and waiting list data by inmate to measure the
success of its programs in reducing recidivism. Without monitoring
this type of information, as we discuss on page 64, Corrections

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

cannot determine the length of time inmates are on a waiting list
for a program, whether inmates are paroled before being assigned
to a program for which they were waiting, whether inmates are
assigned to the programs their assessments indicate they should
attend, or the length of time inmates are in programs.

101

102

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

(Agency response provided as text only.)
Prison Health Care Services
P.O. Box 4038
Sacramento, CA 95812-4038
August 20, 2009
Ms. Elaine Howle
State Auditor
Bureau of State Audits
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: August 2009 Audit Report No. 2009-107.1
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Office of the Receiver has reviewed the draft report
(2009‑107.1) from the California State Auditor, Bureau of State Audits (BSA). California Prison Health Care
Services (CPHCS) would like to take this opportunity to thank the BSA for your professionalism in gathering
and documenting this audit, requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. I especially appreciate your
thoroughness regarding the telemedicine program and noting its progress to date.
As outlined in Objective 5.5 of the Receiver’s Turnaround Plan of Action, I am committed to expanding and
improving our telemedicine capabilities. We have identified telemedicine as an area of interest for improving
access to care and quality of care for patient-inmates in California’s 33 adult prisons. These efforts promise
to significantly reduce cost and increase effectiveness of health care service delivery at COCR institutions,
providing a positive return on investment. To that end, we concur with the BSA recommendations stated in
the reports asking that CPHCS do the following:
To minimize costs through the use of telemedicine
•	 Review the effectiveness of telemedicine consultations to better understand how to
use telemedicine.
•	 Perform a more comprehensive comparison between the cost of using telemedicine and the
cost of traditional consultations beyond the guarding and transportation costs to make informed
decisions regarding the cost‑effectiveness of using telemedicine.
To increase the use of the telemedicine system
•	 Continue to move forward on its initiative to expand the use of telemedicine in COCR’s institutions.
•	 Continue to implement the consultant recommendations that it has adopted from a review of
telemedicine capabilities.

103

104

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Ms. Elaine Howle
Page 2

•	 Maintain a focus on developing and improving its computer systems, such as the Health
Care Scheduling System and the Clinical Data Repository, to increase the efficiency of
using telemedicine.

I am pleased to report that CPHCS has already taken substantial action towards addressing these
recommendations and has planned additional actions in the near future. These actions in-process and
planned actions include:
1.	 We are engaging CPHCS Utilization Management resources to work closely with our telemedicine
program to ensure that telemedicine utilization is maximized and used appropriately. This includes
reviewing each specialty to determine the appropriateness of mandatory initial consultation through
telemedicine, as well as continued care and follow up.
2.	 We are implementing a Third Party Administrator, which significantly enhances our data collection and
analysis capability. This provides the ability to measure telemedicine costs and includes comparison to
off-site costs.
3.	 We plan to identify internal, CDCR employed specialists and, where possible, make the specialists
telemedically available to other institutions.
4.	 In July 2009, our telemedicine program launched a six institution initiative to increase telemedicine
encounters, where medically appropriate.
5.	 We will be working with selective remote institutions to identify technical telemedicine barriers and
fix them.
6.	 CPHCS has deployed a new data network to three of the 33 institutions. By the end of fiscal
year 2009/2010 the network will be deployed to 20 institutions with completion of all 33 by
June 30, 2012. The data network is the most critically important information technology project
that telemedicine is dependent upon.
7.	 CPHCS is developing and deploying the Clinical Data Repository which provides electronic access to
health care information. This improved access to health care information will greatly facilitate the use of
telemedicine. As of June 30, 2009 CPHCS staff had successfully deployed Phase One of the Clinical Data
Repository to a total of five of the 33 institutions.
8.	 The Strategic Offender Management System (SOMS) will serve as the platform for a unified custody
and health care scheduling system. This improvement to health care scheduling will greatly facilitate
the use of telemedicine. Deployment to the institutions is targeted to begin in June of 2010. Health
care scheduling is a great example of the ever growing partnership between CPHCS and Corrections in
the area of information technology.

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

Ms. Elaine Howle
Page 3

Thank you for your objective audit of our telemedicine program. Your audit confirms that while there has
been improvement in our telemedicine program there remains opportunities for improvement. Telemedicine
continues to be an area of focus and we are committed to expanding and improving telemedicine services
delivered to California’s patient-inmate population. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding our
telemedicine program, please contact Bonnie Noble, RN, PhD, Director of Clinical Operations at (916) 445-1176.

Sincerely,
(Signed by: J. Clark Kelso)
J. Clark Kelso
Receiver

105

106

California State Auditor Report 2009-107.1

September 2009

cc:	

Members of the Legislature
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Milton Marks Commission on California State
Government Organization and Economy
Department of Finance
Attorney General
State Controller
State Treasurer
Legislative Analyst
Senate Office of Research
California Research Bureau
Capitol Press